A driver uses a fast-charging station for electric vehicles at John F. Kennedy airport on April 2, 2021 in New York City (Spencer Platt/Getty Images).

Highlighted in Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign as one of the major crises facing the country, climate change has received much less attention in the 2024 race for the presidency.

The candidates, Republican former President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, share the twin goals of lowering energy costs and increasing U.S. jobs in the sector, but diverge widely in their plans to get there.

On the campaign trail, each has spent relatively little time detailing their own plans, instead criticizing the other as extreme.

Harris favors an expansion of renewable energy, which supplies power without the carbon emissions that are the primary driver of climate change.

She has touted her tie-breaking vote in the U.S. Senate to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, the broad domestic policy law Democrats pushed through along party lines that includes hundreds of millions in clean-energy tax credits.

Trump supports fossil fuel production, blaming policies to support renewable energy for rising energy prices. He has called for removing prohibitions on new oil and gas exploration to increase the supply of cheap fuel and reduce costs.

Promise: Promote fossil fuels

Both candidates promise to lower the cost of energy.

For Trump, that has involved hammering the Biden-Harris administration for encouraging renewable energy production.

Inflation was caused by “stupid spending for the Green New Deal, which was a green new scam, it turned out,” Trump said at a Sept. 26 press conference. “Do you notice that they never mention anything about environment anymore? What happened to the environment?”

The former president said at a Sept. 25 campaign stop he would “cut your energy (costs) in half,” by reducing regulations and cutting taxes.

He has not produced a detailed plan to achieve that goal.

Implicit in Trump’s argument is that the Biden administration’s focus on renewable energy has hampered oil and gas production, limiting supply and driving up prices.

But Harris has presented her support for renewable energy modes as part of a broader portfolio that includes fossil fuels.

Harris has highlighted the Inflation Reduction Act opened up new leases for oil and gas production while providing incentives for wind and solar power.

“I am proud that as vice president over the last four years, we have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels,” she said at a Sept. 10 ABC News debate with Trump.

A report this month from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed that U.S. fossil fuel production reached an all-time high in 2023.

Promise: Promote renewables

Harris has also pointed to provisions of the IRA that provide consumers with tax benefits for green technology, such as home heat pumps, as a way to bring down costs.

“Thanks to tax credits on home energy technologies in the Inflation Reduction Act, more than 3.4 million American families saved $8.4 billion in 2023,” her campaign’s 82-page economic plan reads.

Trump also says he supports some climate-conscious technology, including megadonor Elon Musk’s Tesla brand of electric vehicles, but that Democrats have overinvested in non-fossil fuels.

He has called elements of the Inflation Reduction Act “giveaways,” and has singled out spending on electric vehicle charging infrastructure as wasteful.

Promise: Restore jobs

Biden has long talked about a transition away from fossil fuels as a benefit to U.S. workers, positioning them on the cutting edge of a growing industry.

Harris has similarly framed the issue in economic terms, saying the Inflation Reduction Act and other climate policies have created jobs.

“We have created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs while I have been vice president,” she said at the Sept. 10 debate. “We have invested in clean energy to the point that we are opening up factories around the world.”

At a campaign stop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, this month, Harris said Trump’s focus on fossil fuels would hamper job growth, saying he would “send thousands of good-paying clean energy jobs overseas.”

Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, have said Democrats’ focus on renewable energy sources has limited existing energy jobs.

“We’ve got great energy workers in Ohio and all across our country,” Vance said at an August campaign stop in his home state. “They want to earn a reasonable wage and they want to power the American economy. Why don’t we have a president that lets them do exactly that?

“Unleash American energy,” he said. “Drill, baby, drill and let’s turn the page on this craziness.”

Promise: Repeal Democrats’ climate law

Trump has had harsh words for Democrats’ climate law, blaming its spending for rising inflation.

“To further defeat inflation, my plan will terminate the Green New Deal, which I call the Green New Scam. Greatest scam in history, probably,” he told the Economic Club of New York in a Sept. 5 speech.

He said as president he would redirect any unspent funds in the law.

Trump has sought to distance himself from the policy blueprint Project 2025, written by the Heritage Institute.

But there is some overlap between what the conservative think tank has laid out and what Trump said he plans to do in a second term in the White House.

Project 2025 calls for repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, describing it as a subsidy to special interests.

Harris often mentions her tie-breaking vote for the law and has described her plans as president to expand on the law’s objectives.

Harris’ policy plan said she “proudly cast” the tie-breaking vote for the climate bill and that, as president, she would “continue to invest in a thriving clean energy economy.”

She added she would seek to improve that spending by cutting regulations “so that clean energy projects are completed quickly and efficiently in a manner that protects our environment and public health.”

The Democratic National Committee announced Friday it plans to send $2.5 million to state parties. In this photo, signs marking states’ seating sections are installed and adjusted Aug. 15 ahead of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Democratic National Committee will send $2.5 million to more than 30 of its state and territorial parties, including Missouri, in the closing weeks of the 2024 election cycle, the DNC said in a Friday statement.

With the new grants, national Democrats will have contributed to all 57 state and territorial chapters for the first time in a presidential cycle, according to the party.

“From the school board to the White House, the DNC is doing the work to elect Democrats to office at all levels of government,” DNC Chair Jaime Harrison said in the statement, given to States Newsroom ahead of a wider announcement.

“We are the only committee responsible for building Democratic infrastructure to win elections across the map, and with a new $2.5 million in grants, the DNC is delivering a multi-million dollar investment across all 57 state parties this cycle – a historic first for our committee.”

The new grants go beyond the seven swing states considered ultra-competitive in the presidential election that have gotten the lion’s share of attention and spending at the national level — and the handful with key U.S. Senate races that have also attracted a national focus.

Though some grants are relatively small, they represent a commitment by the national party to states across the country, including traditionally red states, Democrats said.

Field workers in Idaho

In Idaho, where Democrats hold just 18 of the 105 seats in the Legislature, a more-than $70,000 commitment from the national party will fund two field workers to reach Hispanic voters in two rural counties and tribal members on the Nez Perce Reservation, state party chair and state Rep. Lauren Necochea said.

Necochea, who spoke with States Newsroom in a Thursday interview ahead of the official announcement, said the funding was significant both for the symbolism of the national party’s investment in the overwhelmingly Republican state and for campaign operations this fall.

“We’re just gratified to see that this investment hit all 57 states and territories for the first time … so that no state is left behind,” she said. “We’re a traditionally red state, and that means we need the funding to fight back.”

The two organizers funded by the national money will help boost turnout in the state’s four battleground state legislative districts, Necochea said.

“This level of investment is also meaningful when it comes to winning races and getting out the vote,” she said, noting that a race in the last cycle was decided by 37 votes.

The outcomes in those races could determine which faction of the state’s Republican Party — either the hard right or the more moderate wing — will control the legislative agenda next session, she said.

The Democratic minority in the Legislature sometimes partners with moderate Republicans on legislation to fund education and health care programs, including maintaining the state’s Medicaid expansion, Necochea said.

“It is essential for state government to continue operating that we have a critical mass of Democrats in the Idaho Legislature,” she said.

Other grants

The DNC provided a partial list of the spending included in Friday’s announcement. State parties are free to use the funds as they wish, a DNC spokesman said. The national party noted some state organizations had already determined how to allocate the money.

Many state organizations planned to pursue outreach to voters of color, including in tribal communities.

Some examples of the spending and objectives, according to the DNC:

• Florida: More than $400,000 for statewide programs targeting “key coalitions.”

• Oregon: $125,000 to help the state party’s efforts in three key U.S. House races.

• Pennsylvania: $100,000 “to supercharge voter outreach” in the only presidential battleground state on the new list. A portion of the funding will target the state’s large Puerto Rican community, the DNC said.

• Minnesota: At least $100,000 to boost the state’s paid canvassing campaign. The new funding brings the total DNC allocation to the state to about $630,000, according to the party. The canvassing effort will help protect Democrats’ slim majorities in both legislative chambers.

• Missouri: “Nearly $100,000” for new organizing staff focused on breaking GOP supermajorities in both statehouse chambers and passing an abortion ballot measure.

• Maryland: $75,000 for the state party’s mail program, with a focus on reaching Asian American and Pacific Islander voters, a growing segment of the state’s voting base, the DNC said. The DNC noted its support for U.S. Senate candidate Angela Alsobrooks, calling her race against former GOP Gov. Larry Hogan critical to protecting reproductive rights.

• South Carolina: More than $70,000 for a get-out-the-vote staffer, focusing on outreach to new voters.

• Maine: $61,250 for three staffers to focus get-out-the-vote efforts in rural parts of U.S. Rep. Jared Golden’s swing district.

• Arkansas: Nearly $60,000 to hire six coalition directors targeting young, Black and Latino voters, including Spanish-speaking organizers. It’s the first DNC spending in Arkansas this cycle.

• Louisiana: $55,000 for an organizer to help the state party reach voters in the new majority-Black 6th Congressional District.

• Kansas: $50,000 for paid canvassing efforts to break GOP supermajorities in both legislative chambers.

• Oklahoma: $50,000 to help the state party’s outreach to tribal communities.

• Virginia: $50,000 for the state party’s get-out-the-vote and voter contact programs, focusing on two competitive U.S. House races.

• West Virginia: $50,000 for get-out-the-vote and paid mail programs targeting “youth and minority voters” who could affect four competitive state legislative races.

• North Dakota: Nearly $40,000 for get-out-the-vote efforts and organizing in tribal communities.

• New Jersey: “Five figures” will go to get-out-the-vote operations in all state races, with a particular focus on Rep. Andy Kim’s U.S. Senate race against Republican Curtis Bashaw. It’s the first DNC spending in the Garden State this cycle.

• Tennessee: An unspecified amount to help the state party “build on the organizing momentum” it has seen in the past year.

Left to right, Sgt. Edward Lenz, Adams Township Police Department, Commander, Butler County Emergency Services Unit; Patrolman Drew Blasko, Butler Township Police Department; Lt. John Herold, Pennsylvania State Police; and Patrick Sullivan, former United States Secret Service agent,  are sworn in Thursday during the first hearing of the Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Members of the U.S. House task force investigating the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump on Thursday blamed the U.S. Secret Service for poor planning and breakdowns in communication and coordination with local law enforcement.

Republicans and Democrats on the House Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump at their first public hearing praised the work of local law enforcement agencies, representatives of which testified at the hearing.

Lawmakers said initial investigations showed it was the Secret Service who was responsible for a lack of planning, information-sharing and decision-making.

Thomas Matthew Crooks, the attempted assassin, at a July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, scouted the site in the days ahead of Trump’s rally and found security vulnerabilities, task force Chair Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican, said.

If those weaknesses were not apparent to the 20-year-old gunman, the entire incident may have been avoided, Kelly added.

But the shooting that injured Trump’s ear and killed one rallygoer was caused by more than one  breakdown, he said.

“It was not a single mistake that allowed Crooks to outmaneuver one of our country’s most elite” security agencies, Kelly said. “There were security failures on multiple fronts.”

The Secret Service, which is the lead agency during any event in which a person under the agency’s protection is present, did not create a sufficient plan and was not decisive on key questions, Kelly said. The agency did not manage access to sites adjacent to the rally and did not effectively communicate with state and local partners, he added.

Testimony from local agencies

Local officials told the panel they felt prepared in their assignment of assisting the Secret Service protection.

Commander Edward Lenz of the Butler County Emergency Services Unit said the Secret Service had requested help from counter-assault teams, sniper teams and a quick reaction force and that the local agency felt prepared for those missions.

“There were additional things, obviously, that probably needed (to be) covered,” he said. “But they never asked us to do that, they never tasked us with that. So given what they specifically asked us to do, we were certainly prepared.”

He added that sniper teams had not been given specific instructions for their mission.

Patrolman Drew Blasko of the Butler Township Police Department said local police executed what had been asked of them.

“With the information that we had, I believe that we did the very best that we could,” Blasko said.

No unified command

The task force’s ranking Democrat, Colorado’s Jason Crow, who is an Army veteran, highlighted a failure to communicate.

“Clear lines of communication are crucial,” he said during an opening statement. “The Secret Service must do better.”

Later, while questioning witnesses, Crow said he was surprised to learn the Secret Service did not establish a unified command center for the Butler rally.

Patrick Sullivan, a former Secret Service agent who testified in his personal capacity, said that was atypical for a Secret Service operation.

Usually, a central command post is established for the Secret Service, state and local agencies and any other assisting law enforcement, Sullivan said.

“This is very unusual, the way it turned out here in this site,” he said.

A unified command center can help relay information from disparate teams, including warning the agents closest to the president or presidential candidate of a suspicious person.

Pennsylvania Democrat Chrissy Houlahan noted that the communications breakdown between Secret Service and local authorities happened because they were not on the same radio frequencies.

“So here we were with three minutes and every second counting, and the Secret Service and the state police weren’t able to directly hear what local law enforcement actually saw, because they didn’t have that interoperability with local law enforcement frequencies and didn’t have possession of those radios,” she said.

She called for reforms to require different agencies are able to communicate with each other.

Slipped through cracks

Crooks was spotted multiple times throughout the day and identified by local police as suspicious, Kelly said.

Crooks was operating in an unsecured area “where information about him was both delayed and limited,” Kelly said.

Sullivan told Ohio Republican David Joyce that authorities could have used several methods to secure adjacent sites, suggesting the most effective way could have been to station officers there.

Local police spotted Crooks, identified him as suspicious and passed information on to the Pennsylvania State Police and the Secret Service, Lenz said.

But that information did not reach the Secret Service in time to remove Trump from the stage before the shooting began, Kelly said.

“The Secret Service could not process the information fast enough to pull the former president from the stage,” Kelly added.

The chairman wondered why Trump was allowed to go on stage after Crooks had been flagged several times.

“I’m constantly going to be wondering, at what point did somebody say, ‘We’re not sure the area is secure and safe,’” Kelly said.

First hearing

After two months of investigation, the Thursday meeting marked the first public hearing for the task force, which the House voted unanimously to form in the aftermath of the Butler shooting.

The Secret Service has borne the brunt of the blame for the shooting.

Then-Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned under pressure in the days following the attempted assassination.

Acting Director Ronald Rowe said last week the incident was “a failure of the United States Secret Service” and pledged it would spark a “paradigm shift” in how the agency operates.

The importance of Secret Service protection and the task force’s mission was highlighted again this month when a man who’d been hiding in the bushes of Trump’s Florida golf club was arrested and charged with another attempted assassination.

Members of both parties on the panel condemned targeting political candidates Thursday.

“Political violence has no place in our democracy, period,” Crow said.

Trump said this week he will return to Butler on Oct. 5 to “finish our speech.”

Former President Donald Trump, Republican presidential nominee, speaks to attendees during a campaign rally Wednesday at the Mosack Group warehouse in Mint Hill, North Carolina. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump suggested without evidence Wednesday that Iran could be responsible for two apparent assassination attempts he has faced this year, saying foreign leaders objected to his position on tariffs.

Authorities have made no public statements to support the claim that either would-be assassin — in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July and near Trump’s Florida home this month — was aided by foreign agents or anyone else. Trump tied the two incidents to the separate hacking of his campaign, which U.S. intelligence agencies say was conducted by Iran.

“There have been two assassination attempts on my life — that we know of,” Trump, the GOP candidate for president, said at a campaign stop in Mint Hill, North Carolina. “And they may or may not involve — but possibly do — Iran, but I don’t really know.”

Trump also aired his theory on X on Wednesday, saying, “Big threats on my life by Iran. The entire U.S. Military is watching and waiting. Moves were already made by Iran that didn’t work out, but they will try again.”

The Trump campaign told USA Today in a statement on Tuesday night that “President Trump was briefed earlier today by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence regarding real and specific threats from Iran to assassinate him in an effort to destabilize and sow chaos in the United States.”

USA Today also said a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, acknowledged the briefing occurred but did not provide specifics about what was said.

In his remarks in North Carolina, Trump thanked members of Congress in both parties for approving more funding for the U.S. Secret Service, but added that if he were president when a foreign country threatened a presidential candidate, he would retaliate in the strongest terms.

“So I thank everybody in Congress,” he said. “But if I were the president, I would inform the threatening country, in this case Iran, that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens. We’re going to blow it to smithereens.”

The gunman in the Pennsylvania shooting, Thomas Crooks, was killed by law enforcement at the scene. In the second case, in Florida, Ryan Wesley Routh was charged on Tuesday with attempted assassination of Trump.

In the hour-long speech that included some attention to economic issues, Trump said that he was a target of foreign governments because of his plans to expand tariffs, which are taxes on imported goods.

“I’m imposing tariffs on your competition from foreign countries, all these foreign countries that have ripped us off, which stole all of your businesses and all of your jobs years ago and took your businesses out,” he said. “This is why people in countries want to kill me. They’re not happy with me. It is – it’s a risky business. This is why they want to kill me.”

Trump also said he would set a 15% tax rate on companies that produce their goods domestically.  That low rate, combined with tariffs on foreign goods, would boost U.S. manufacturing, including furniture production that was once a large industry in North Carolina, he said.

Tariffs generally lead to higher prices, which have plagued consumers since 2020.

Harris in Pennsylvania

The Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, painted a more optimistic picture of the U.S. economic present and future in her own economy-focused speech Wednesday in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Harris acknowledged that prices remained too high.

“You know it, and I know it,” she said, according to a pool report.

Harris said her economic priorities were focused on the middle class, which she contrasted with what she described as Trump’s favoritism to wealthy people.

She said she would encourage innovation by boosting research in a host of technologies from biomanufacturing to artificial intelligence and the blockchain, and said her approach to the presidency would include experimenting with different strategies.

“As president, I will be grounded in my fundamental values of fairness, dignity and opportunity,” she said. “And I promise you, I will be pragmatic in my approach. I will engage in what Franklin Roosevelt called bold, persistent experimentation.”

Immigration blamed by GOP

Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, applied their nativist immigration positions to speeches focused on the economy in their Wednesday campaign appearances. Both said immigrants in the country illegally were responsible for driving down employment and wages among U.S.-born workers.

“The jobs are going to illegal migrants that came into our country illegally,” Trump said in North Carolina. “Our Black population all over the country, our Hispanic population, are losing their jobs. They’re citizens of America, they’re losing their jobs.”

In a call earlier Wednesday touting the International Brotherhood of Teamsters’ decision not to endorse in the presidential race and an internal electronic poll showing most members supported the GOP ticket, Vance said organized labor had long sought to protect U.S. workers from immigrants.

“The American labor movement has always recognized that illegal labor undercuts the wages of American workers,” Vance said on the call. “Those are folks competing against American citizens and legal residents for important jobs and undercutting their wages in the process.”

Vance said, without citing a source, that all net job growth under Harris and President Joe Biden had gone to foreign workers, including “25 million” immigrants in the country illegally.

Official estimates place the number of immigrants residing in the country without authorization at about 11 million, less than half of Vance’s claim.

A GOP campaign spokesperson did not substantively respond to a question about the source for Vance’s statement that foreign-born workers accounted for all job growth during the Biden administration.

Trump to return to Butler

Trump said Wednesday he would return to Butler, Pennsylvania, the site of the first assassination attempt on him. The former president suffered an injury to his ear during a shooting that killed one rallygoer and injured two others.

“We’re going to go back and finish our speech,” he said in North Carolina.

A bipartisan U.S. Senate interim report published Wednesday made initial conclusions that the U.S. Secret Service failed to adequately plan to secure the outdoor rally and made missteps in communication that led to the shooter being able to fire at the former president.

The report was commissioned by U.S. Sens. Gary Peters, a Democrat of Michigan; Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky; Democrat Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut; and Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson. They are the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the panel’s investigations subcommittee.

Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., on Wednesday posted to X, and later deleted, a comment that invoked racist stereotypes about Haitians. In this photo, Higgins speaks during a press conference on the National Defense Authorization Act with members of the House Freedom Caucus on July 14, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Steven Horsford of Nevada took to the U.S. House floor Wednesday night to condemn an “overtly racist” tweet against Haitians and Haitian Americans by Louisiana Republican U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins.

Hours before members were scheduled to depart for a recess through the November elections, Higgins posted to X a comment that invoked racist stereotypes about Haitians and said Haitians in the United States should leave the country before Jan. 20, the date the next president will be inaugurated.

Higgins’ post included a link to an Associated Press story about a nonprofit representing Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, that has brought charges against former President Donald Trump and Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, whose campaign for president and vice president has centered on criticism of immigration.

“These Haitians are wild. Eating pets, vudu, nastiest country in the western hemisphere, cults, slapstick gangsters… but damned if they don’t feel all sophisticated now, filing charges against our President and VP,” Higgins wrote. “All these thugs better get their mind right and their ass out of our country before January 20^th.”

Haitians are generally not among the immigrants living in the country illegally, as they have been granted Temporary Protected Status due to conditions in their home country. Trump and Vance have amplified disproven rumors about the Haitian community in Springfield, leading to hoax bomb threats against schools, government buildings and local leaders.

Horsford, a Democrat, and other members — reportedly including Florida Republican Byron Donalds – approached Higgins on the House floor after the tweet. Higgins deleted the post shortly after.

Democrats condemn post

After a brief period of confusion about the proper process to introduce a censure resolution, Horsford — surrounded by members of the Congressional Black Caucus and other Democrats — spoke on the House floor to condemn the tweet and called for a vote to censure Higgins when the House returns from recess.

“Rep. Higgins used his official account on X to publicly slander, insult and demean all Haitians and Haitian Americans in an overtly racist post,” Horsford said.

Rep. Troy Carter, the lone Democrat and only Black member of Louisiana’s congressional delegation, blasted Higgins’ post in a written statement.

“I am appalled by the racist and reprehensible remarks made by Rep. Clay Higgins about the people of Haiti,” he wrote. “We all owe each other better than this, but as elected officials we should hold ourselves to an even higher standard. We have a solemn responsibility to represent and respect all races of people. Hate-filled rhetoric like this is not just offensive — it is dangerous. It incites division, perpetuates harmful stereotypes, and undermines the core values of our democracy.”

Johnson, Scalise defend Higgins

Two of Higgins’ fellow Louisiana Republicans in House leadership defended him Wednesday.

Talking to reporters, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he’d spoken to Higgins, who told the speaker he regretted the language of the tweet.

Higgins “was approached on the floor by colleagues who said that was offensive,” Johnson. “He said he went to the back and he prayed about it, and he regretted it, and he pulled the post down. That’s what you want the gentleman to do. I’m sure he probably regrets the language he used. But, you know, we move forward. We believe in redemption around here.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana briefly defended Higgins on the floor before the chamber took a short recess.

Scalise noted the post had been taken down and suggested censure was inappropriate because he could find examples of Democratic members making divisive comments.

“If we want to go through every comment, tweet from the other side, we’ll be happy to do it and you’ll be appalled,” Scalise said.

The Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump, participates in a Fox News Town Hall with Sean Hannity at the New Holland Arena on Sept. 4, 2024 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, continue to campaign across swing states as polls show a tight race prior to next week’s presidential debate in Philadelphia (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

After a poor showing in Tuesday night’s ABC News presidential debate, Republican nominee Donald Trump said Thursday in a post to his social media platform he will not participate in any more debates with Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris before the Nov. 5 election.

Former President Trump and Harris had differing proposals for a future debate. Trump pushed for an NBC News-hosted meeting on Sept. 25 and Harris’ campaign team said immediately after the Tuesday event that she wanted another debate sometime in October. Fox News had offered to host an October debate.

But Trump put in definitive terms Thursday that he would not take part in another debate with Harris. He claimed victory in Tuesday’s meeting – which initial polls show Harris got the better of ­– and compared Harris’ call for a rematch with that of a boxer who’d lost.

Harris’ time would be better spent working to solve the country’s myriad problems, he said.

“When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, ‘I WANT A REMATCH.’ Polls clearly show that I won the Debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ Radical Left Candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a Second Debate,” Trump wrote in the Truth Social post.

“KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!” he added.

In her own tweet roughly an hour after Trump’s, Harris renewed her call for another debate.

“Two nights ago, Donald Trump and I had our first debate,” she wrote. “We owe it to the voters to have another debate.”

In an average of three national polls compiled by 538, the polling news and data division of ABC News, 57% of respondents said Harris won the debate and 34% said Trump won. That included a Republican-sponsored survey.

Trump and conservative allies spent the post-debate period Tuesday night and Wednesday morning arguing that ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis were biased in favor of Harris.

Trump and several others complained that the moderators fact-checked Trump, including on false claims about infanticide and migrants eating pets in Ohio, while not doing the same to Harris.

There will be one more debate, though — between vice presidential nominees U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, a Republican, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, who are scheduled to meet Oct. 1 in New York City.

Trump debated President Joe Biden in June when Biden was the presumptive Democratic nominee. The president’s poor performance in that debate spurred his exit from the race — and Harris’ arrival ­— weeks later.

A Robust Cannabis employee showcases the company's Black Hole Sun strain at their warehouse in Cuba, Missouri (Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent).

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s early Monday statement that he would vote to legalize recreational marijuana use in Florida sent a strong signal that both major parties are moving to adopt popular marijuana reform efforts, unexpectedly elevating the issue in the presidential battle.

But the campaign for the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, expressed strong skepticism about Trump’s sudden embrace of reform and criticized Trump’s record in office, accusing him of “blatant pandering” after States Newsroom inquired about Harris’ position on legalization.

The statement from Trump, who has sought to portray himself as a “law and order” candidate throughout his political career, shows the growing support for marijuana legalization among voters of both parties nationwide — and could be a signal that GOP elected officials will align themselves with legalization, Josh Glasstetter, a spokesperson for the advocacy group U.S. Cannabis Council, said in an interview with States Newsroom.

“Trump’s statement on Truth Social signals that there is a political realignment that is well underway on the issue of cannabis reform,” Glasstetter said.

Trump said in a post to his social media platform that he would vote yes on Florida’s Amendment 3, a ballot initiative to legalize recreational cannabis use in the state.

He also said he supported federal legislation to remove federal restrictions on banking services for state-legal marijuana businesses and moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act.

States with legal recreational marijuana industries, which now number 24, have long sought tweaks to federal law to allow banks to legally provide loans and other services to marijuana businesses that are legal under state law. Bills in Congress, while largely bipartisan, have been introduced for years but not yet won the consensus needed to become law.

Schedule I is the most restrictive category under federal law and indicates a drug has no medicinal value and high risk of abuse. President Joe Biden’s administration has started the move to Schedule III, which includes heavily regulated legal substances including Tylenol with codeine.

Harris camp blasts Trump

The Harris campaign said Trump is trying to gloss over his past.

“Despite his blatant pandering, Donald Trump cannot paper over his extensive record of dragging marijuana reform backward,” campaign spokesman Joseph Costello wrote in an email. “As president, Trump cracked down on nonviolent marijuana offenses – undermining state legalization laws, opposed safe banking legislation, and even tried to remove protections for medical marijuana.

“Donald Trump does not actually believe in marijuana reform, but the American people are smart enough to see through his campaign lies.”

The campaign did not respond to a follow-up message seeking clarity on Harris’ position on the issue.

Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, took a hard line against a growing trend of states legalizing marijuana use. He rescinded a 2013 document known as the Cole memo that required federal officials to stay out of state-legal marijuana operations.

But Glasstetter said Trump had “clearly reassessed his position” on the issue, reflecting a consensus among voters that Republican officials have been slower to adopt.

“For many years now, cannabis reform advocates have talked about the growing bipartisan consensus among voters in support of cannabis reform and elected officials have been a lagging indicator, particularly on the conservative side of the spectrum,” he said.

While Harris has not highlighted the issue — besides not answering emailed questions Monday, the campaign’s newly launched issues page on its website does not mention cannabis — she is seen as an ally of reformers based on her record, including as U.S. senator and California attorney general, Glasstetter said.

Harris convened a roundtable of marijuana reform advocates at the White House in March that included rapper Fat Joe and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat. At that event, she promoted the administration’s work to relax federal marijuana restrictions and spoke in favor of broad reforms.

“I’ve said many times: I believe –— I think we all at this table believe — no one should have to go to jail for smoking weed,” she said.

Leading Republicans

Trump’s endorsement could be seen as an attempt to close the policy gap between the parties on a popular issue.

Republicans in Congress have lagged behind their Democratic colleagues in seeking marijuana reforms, even as polls and ballot initiatives in states that favor both parties have shown legalizing marijuana use is an increasingly popular position among voters of all political persuasions, Glasstetter said.

A Pew Research Center poll this year showed 88% of respondents thought marijuana should be legal for recreational or medical use. That was up from 68% in the same survey in 2022.

At a May hearing of the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, just days after Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the administration would seek to reschedule cannabis, Republican representatives voiced skepticism over the move to federal Drug Enforcement Administrator Anne Milgram.

Rep. Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican, noted studies finding a connection between cannabis use and psychosis. The country is dealing with a mental health crisis, he said.

“My concern is rescheduling marijuana would make the crisis worse,” he said.

But an endorsement from Trump, who holds immense influence among congressional Republicans, could be crucial to getting more Republicans to change their positions, Glasstetter said.

“Former President Trump is a leading indicator,” he said. “We expect that his high-profile embrace of cannabis reform will make it much easier for other Republicans, particularly in Congress, to come out in support of cannabis reform.”

The Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump, participates in a Fox News Town Hall with Sean Hannity at the New Holland Arena on Sept. 4, 2024 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, continue to campaign across swing states as polls show a tight race prior to next week’s presidential debate in Philadelphia (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump questioned polls showing a close race against Vice President Kamala Harris and complained about the conditions of an upcoming debate during a Fox News interview Wednesday in Pennsylvania.

Under questioning from a friendly interviewer, Sean Hannity of Fox News, in front of an arena of cheering supporters in Harrisburg, the Republican presidential nominee also reiterated a pledge to conduct a massive deportation operation if elected to another term and attacked Harris for her former position to ban the natural gas extraction technique known as fracking.

Trump agreed to the interview, which had been advertised as a town hall but did not include audience questions, after Harris rejected his proposal for a Fox News debate on the same date. He said Wednesday he would have preferred to be meeting Harris on stage.

“I think he’s a nice guy, but I would have preferred a debate,” Trump said of Hannity. “But this is the best we could do, Sean.”

But Trump spent part of the hour Wednesday criticizing the details of the 90-minute debate the campaigns have agreed to, in Philadelphia on Sept. 10 on ABC.

He called ABC News “the most dishonest network, the meanest, the nastiest,” claimed the network purposely released poor polls ahead of the 2016 election to suppress turnout and said, without evidence, executives would share questions with Harris ahead of the event.

Hannity said he should host the debate instead.

Trump also claimed the family of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, endorsed him. Charles Herbster, who sought the GOP nomination for Nebraska governor in 2022, posted to X a photograph of a group of Walz’s second cousins wearing Trump shirts.

Walz’s sister, Sandy Dietrich, told The Associated Press the family was not particularly close with that branch, and said she would be voting for the ticket that included her brother.

Walz’s brother, Jeff Walz, made disparaging remarks about the Minnesota governor on Facebook, but later told NewsNation he would not comment further.

Bad polls

Hannity’s introduction Wednesday noted polls showed a tight race, but Trump said the enthusiasm among his supporters made that seem unlikely.

“I hear the polls are very close and we have a little lead,” he said. “I just find it hard to believe, because first of all, they’ve been so bad.”

Trump has sought to delegitimize polls and even election results that have not shown him ahead, including during the 2020 campaign, when he said he could only lose by fraud. After his loss to Biden, he made a series of spurious fraud allegations that led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

He said Wednesday he did well in 2016, when he won the election, but “much better” in 2020, which he lost. The enthusiasm for the current campaign tops either, he said.

Trump also complained that Harris’ entry into the race, after President Joe Biden dropped out following a bad debate performance in June, was “a coup” against Biden.

Immigration claims

Trump spent much of the hour talking about immigration, an issue he has highlighted throughout his time in politics.

He repeated claims, without evidence, that immigrants entering the country illegally were largely coming from prisons and “insane asylums” and said terrorists were entering the country through the southern border.

He described immigrants as a threat to public safety and to safety net programs like Medicare and Social Security.

“These people are so bad,” he said. “They’re so dangerous. What they’ve done to our country is they’re destroying our country. And we can’t let this happen.”

He seemed to reference a viral claim that Venezuelan immigrants had “taken over” an apartment in Aurora, Colorado. Residents of the building have disputed that description.

Fracking and Pennsylvania

Playing to the audience of supporters in Pennsylvania’s state capital, Trump also attacked Harris for her former position on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a technique for extracting natural gas that is a major industry in the commonwealth.

Harris said during her short-lived campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2020 election she supported an end to fracking. Trump and Hannity brought that up several times Wednesday, with Trump saying it should disqualify her for voters in Pennsylvania, whose 19 electoral votes will be key in deciding the election.

“You have no choice,” he said. “You’ve got to vote for me, even if you don’t like me.”

Harris has said this year she does not support a ban on fracking.

More to come

The event was advertised as a town hall and Hannity several times said audience questions would be upcoming, but no members of the pro-Trump audience were given an opportunity to ask a question.

During the interview, Hannity acknowledged Dave McCormick, the Republican challenger to Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Casey in one of the nation’s most competitive Senate races, in the crowd.

Hannity indicated at the end of the broadcast that taping would continue, with McCormick asking “the first question,” and air Thursday night. In an email following the event, Fox News spokeswoman Sofie Watson said the portion of the event with audience questions would air “later this week.”

U.S. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., right, is interviewed by Jonathan Martin of Politico near the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Aug. 19 (Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom).

CHICAGO –– The leader of Democrats’ U.S. Senate campaign arm projected confidence Monday at a Politico event organized outside the Democratic National Convention, saying the party would sweep competitive races this cycle and retain control of the chamber with a win in the presidential race.

U.S. Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told Politico’s Jonathan Martin that incumbents Jon Tester in Montana and Sherrod Brown in Ohio would overcome partisan disadvantages in their states to win reelection on the strength of their individual brands.

“Jon Tester is as authentic a person from Montana as you could possibly get,” Peters said. “He understands folks in Montana. He’s out in the community. Montana is a really big state geographically, but population-wise is smaller, and so he’s gotten to know a lot of folks in a more personal way that allows you to transcend some of that.”

Tester is being opposed by Republican Tim Sheehy, an entrepreneur and former Navy SEAL.

The same went for Brown in Ohio, Peters said.

“I’ve always said I don’t know if any Democrat can win Ohio, unless their name is Sherrod Brown,” he said. “Which is why I say, in this election, I have really good news for folks: I got a guy named Sherrod Brown who’s running in Ohio.”

Republican businessman Bernie Moreno is challenging Brown.

Democrats have no margin for error this Senate election cycle.

With the departure of Sen. Joe Manchin III, a West Virginia independent who was elected as a Democrat and is retiring rather than seeking reelection this fall, and no Republicans in seriously competitive states up for reelection, they must win the remaining competitive races. In addition, Vice President Kamala Harris must prevail in the presidential race to keep control of the chamber.

In addition to Tester’s and Brown’s races, Democratic incumbents are up for reelection in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada, while retirements have created open races in Michigan and Arizona. Winning all seven would give Senate Democrats a 50-50 tie that could be broken with the vote of a Democratic vice president.

The races in Michigan, Montana and Ohio are rated “toss-up” by The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter. The other four are rated “lean Democrat,” meaning the Democratic candidate is slightly favored.

Relationship with Arab American community

Peters said Harris should work to communicate with his state’s Arab American voters on the Israel-Hamas war.

The roughly 200,000 Arab American voters in Michigan make it unique among swing states.

Many of those voters opposed President Joe Biden’s aborted reelection race, and Peters said they should now listen to the new candidate at the top of the Democratic ticket.

“She is talking to a lot of folks who feel very frustrated that they’re not being listened to by folks — not just this administration but generally — about what’s happening in Gaza,” he said.

Peters said Harris has communicated that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas, “a horrible terrorist organization that has engaged in unspeakable atrocities,” but has also been sensitive to the “innocent folks caught in the middle.”

He said a cease-fire in the Middle East was needed.

Asked directly if Harris would differentiate her policy views from Biden’s, Peter said she would.

To win Michigan, Peters said it was important to authentically communicate her own message on that issue.

“It shows that she’s her own person, she thinks her own way,” he said.

Workers on Aug. 15 prepare the United Center for the start of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The DNC runs from August 19-22 (Joe Raedle/Getty Images).

Democrats will gather in Chicago for their once-every-four-years convention, beginning Monday. Here’s a rundown:

What is it?

National political conventions are large gatherings of party officeholders, candidates and allies. They meet every four years to officially nominate candidates for president and vice president; to adopt a party platform, the list of policy proposals most party members agree on; and to celebrate and network.

This year, Vice President Kamala Harris has already been officially nominated through a virtual roll call vote earlier this month. A ceremonial roll call is still expected to be a part of the convention, and Harris will officially accept the nomination.

When should I tune in?

The convention runs from Monday, Aug. 19 to Thursday, Aug. 22.

Major news networks and a host of streaming platforms will broadcast the nightly events — usually speeches from high-profile members of the party — live. The prime-time program runs from 6:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday and 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Full schedules for prime-time speeches have not been disclosed, but the vice presidential candidate usually accepts the nomination on Wednesday night and the presidential nominee’s acceptance speech closes out the convention on Thursday night.

Former presidents and presidential nominees are also likely to have speaking roles.

During the day, delegates and party officials will hold various events and meetings, only some of which will be broadcast or even open to reporters, as the convention doubles as a huge networking event for Democratic politicians, strategists, activists and others.

How can I watch?

Network and cable news TV stations generally air the prime-time programming from start to finish.

National Public Radio will also broadcast much of the convention.

Convention organizers will also be livestreaming the event on a host of platforms, including YouTube, X and TikTok. A full list of official livestreams is available here.

Where is the convention this year?

Chicago is hosting the Democratic convention for the 12th time, the most of any city.

The major addresses in the evening will be at the United Center, an arena that fits tens of thousands for the city’s professional basketball and hockey teams, concerts or other events.

Daytime activities will be more spread out, with locations at McCormick Place, about 6 miles southeast of the United Center, and the River North neighborhood, about 2 ½ miles to the northeast.

How many people will be there?

About 5,000 Democratic delegates, who have the formal duty of voting to approve the nominees for president and vice president, are expected to attend.

A total of about 50,000 people could be in town for the event, according to the city.

Will any celebrities be there? 

The 2016 Democratic National Convention — the last in-person convention Democrats held, since they moved the 2020 version online in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic — that nominated Hillary Clinton featured celebrities including singer Katy Perry and screenwriter/actor Lena Dunham.

The Republican National Convention in July included appearances by musical artist Kid Rock and professional wrestler Hulk Hogan during prime time.

A full list of participants for the Democratic convention this year has not yet been shared, but that has not stopped some fans of major music acts from wishing they’ll see their favorites at the event.

Where can I find fair, fearless and free reporting about the convention?

Right here! And from your state’s newsroom, which you can find on this map. States Newsroom is sending multiple reporters to cover the convention and will have in-depth coverage of the major events and more.

Signs marking states’ seating sections are installed and adjusted ahead of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center on Aug. 15, 2024 in Chicago. The convention will be held Aug. 19-22 (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Just a little over a month after she became a candidate for president in the biggest shakeup in generations of presidential politics, Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday will deliver a widely anticipated speech accepting the Democratic nomination at the party’s convention in Chicago.

Harris’ ascent to the top of the ticket after President Joe Biden changed course and said he would not seek reelection has breathed new life into the Democratic bid, with polls showing Harris — who is already the party’s official nominee after a virtual roll call earlier this month — faring much better than Biden was against Republican rival Donald Trump.

Over the course of four days, Democrats will look to capitalize on their base’s newfound enthusiasm for the campaign, with leading speakers aiming to rally the faithful around the party’s positions on reproductive rights, gun safety and voting rights, while making a strong pitch to young voters. Harris will also be expected to further lay out her policy positions.

Harris’ nomination is historic. The daughter of immigrants, Harris is the first Black and South Asian woman selected to lead a major party ticket. She would be the first woman of any race to guide the nation as chief executive.

The party has not released an official detailed schedule of speakers, but a convention official confirmed that “current and past presidents are expected to participate in convention programming.” Biden and two former presidents, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, as well as former nominee Hillary Clinton, will all speak, according to the New York Times.

Vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is expected to address the convention Wednesday evening, with Harris’ acceptance speech closing out the convention Thursday, the convention official said.

The evening programming block will run from 6:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday and 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. the rest of the week.

In addition to the usual television broadcasts, the convention will livestream on several social media platforms, including YouTube, X, Instagram and TikTok. The official live stream will be available on DemConvention.com.

Scores of Democratic caucus and council meetings, as well as state delegation breakfasts and gatherings, are also scheduled throughout the week’s daytime hours. Media organizations and outside groups are also holding daytime events that will feature Democratic officeholders and candidates.

Protests are also expected over the Biden administration’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war, with the backdrop of a delegation of uncommitted voters who oppose the war.

As many as 25,000 protestors are expected over the course of the convention, according to DemList, a newsletter for Democratic officials and allies.

A contest transformed

Harris’ entry into the race, nearly immediately after Biden announced on July 21 he would no longer seek reelection, energized Democrats distressed over Biden’s poor showings in polls against Trump, whose reelection bid Biden turned back in 2020.

A Monmouth University poll published Aug. 14 showed a huge jump in enthusiasm for Democrats. The survey found 85% of Democratic respondents were excited about the Harris-Trump race. By comparison, only 46% of Democratic respondents said in June they were excited about a Biden-Trump race.

Harris is also seeing better polling numbers in matchups against Trump, with battleground-state and national surveys consistently shifting toward the Democratic ticket since Biden left the race.

Polls of seven battleground states published by The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter on Aug. 14 showed Harris narrowly leading in five states — Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and tied in Georgia and trailing in Nevada. All were improvements from Biden’s standing in the same poll in May.

An Aug. 14 survey from Quinnipiac University showed Harris with a 48%-45% edge in Pennsylvania. The 3-point advantage for Harris was within the poll’s margin of error.

Democrats hope to carry the momentum through the convention. Polls typically favor a party during and immediately after its national party gathering.

Despite the recent polling, Harris and Walz continue to describe themselves as underdogs in the race.

Campaign themes

In her short time on the campaign trail, Harris has emphasized a few core messages.

She’s made reproductive rights a central focus, including the slogan “We are not going back” in her stump speech after describing Republicans’ position on abortion. Additionally, a Texas woman who had to leave the state for an emergency abortion will speak at the DNC, according to Reuters.

Harris has also played up her background as a prosecutor, drawing a contrast with Trump’s legal troubles.

Walz has highlighted his working-class background and military service, while attacking Republican positions to restrict reproductive rights and ban certain books in schools.

Walz’s first solo campaign stop since Harris selected him as her running mate was at a union convention, where he emphasized his union background as a high school teacher.

Walz was not initially considered the favorite to be Harris’ running mate, but his appeal as a Midwesterner with a record of winning tough elections and enacting progressive policies led to his selection Aug. 6.

Harris has faced criticism for not sitting down for a formal media interview or holding a press conference since she became a candidate.

Platform in flux

Democrats have not finalized their platform for 2024. Adopting a party platform is generally among the official items at a convention.

The party set a draft platform in July just eight days before Biden dropped his reelection bid. The document centered on the theme of “finishing the job” and mentioned Biden, then the presumptive nominee, 50 times and Harris 12.

Party spokespeople did not respond to an inquiry this week about plans for an update to the platform.

Reproductive rights will likely be a focus point of any policy wishlist.

Harris, during her time as vice president, has led the administration’s messaging on reproductive rights after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in the summer of 2022.

In her campaign speeches, she has often stressed the need to “trust women” and that the government should not be deciding reproductive health.

Harris has often promised that if she is elected, she will restore those reproductive rights, but unless Democrats control a majority in the U.S. House and 60 Senate votes, it’s unlikely she would be able to achieve that promise.

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in that Supreme Court decision, Democrats have campaigned on reproductive rights that expand beyond abortion and include protections for in vitro fertilization.

The 2020 party platform focused on recovering from the coronavirus pandemic, the economy, quality health care, investing in education, protecting democracy and combating climate change.

Democrats are likely to continue to criticize the Project 2025 playbook — a blueprint by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank, to implement conservative policies across the federal government should Trump win in November.

Trump has disavowed the document, but has not detailed his own policy plans.

Chicago conventions

The Democratic National Convention will take place in Chicago, a city with a long history of hosting the event. Democrats have held their convention in Chicago 11 times, first in 1864 and most recently in 1996.

This year’s will be the first in-person Democratic National Convention since 2016. It was upended due to the coronavirus pandemic and held virtually in 2020.

Throughout the four-day convention, there will be speeches and side events hosted by state Democratic party leaders.

The ceremonial roll call vote with delegates on the convention floor will take place Tuesday. The vice presidential nomination speech by Walz will be Wednesday night and on Thursday night, Harris will give her nomination acceptance speech.

The city is also preparing for massive protests from several groups on reproductive rights, LGBTQ protections, housing and an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, according to WBEZ News. 

The City Council of Chicago in January approved a ceasefire resolution, with Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson the tiebreaker, making it the largest city to call for an end to the Israel-Hamas war, in which more than 40,000 Palestinians have died.

The war followed an Oct. 7 attack from Hamas, in which nearly 1,200 people were killed in Israel and hundreds taken hostage.

Road to nomination

Harris’ acceptance speech will cap a five-year journey to her party’s nomination.

In 2019, the California senator announced a bid for president in the next year’s election, but dropped out before the first primary or caucus votes were cast after she failed to catch on with Democratic voters.

Biden later picked her as a running mate, and the two defeated Trump and then-Vice President Mike Pence in the 2020 election.

Biden launched a reelection campaign for 2024, but stepped aside after a disastrous debate performance in June spurred questions about his ability to campaign and serve for another four-year term.

After Biden bowed out, Harris quickly secured 99% of delegates to become the party’s likely nominee. The virtual five-day vote secured her official nomination.

With less than three months until Election Day, Harris and Walz already have sprinted through battleground states including Arizona, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

Their campaign has also pulled in more than $300 million, according to the campaign. Official Federal Election Commission records will be released in mid-October.

Harris and Trump have agreed to a Sept. 10 debate hosted by ABC News in Philadelphia. Trump proposed two more debates, and Harris has said she would be open to another one between the first debate and Election Day.

Walz and Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio have agreed to an Oct. 1 debate on CBS News, in New York City.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump appears ahead of the start of jury selection at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 15, 2024 in New York City (Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images).

Former President Donald Trump asked a New York court Thursday to delay until after November’s presidential election his sentencing for the 34 state felonies the court convicted him of in May.

Judge Juan Merchan scheduled a sentencing hearing for Sept. 18. But that date overlaps with early voting in the presidential election and gives Trump too little time to appeal a potential ruling against him on a request to vacate the conviction, which Merchan is scheduled to issue two days prior, attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote to Merchan in a letter dated Wednesday.

The one-page letter was not on the court’s official docket Thursday morning, but Blanche provided a copy to States Newsroom and said it had been filed with the court.

Merchan’s schedule is unrealistic and ignores several related issues, Trump’s attorneys wrote.

A sentencing proceeding could improperly affect voters’ perception of Trump leading up to Election Day, and Merchan’s daughter’s ties to elected Democrats could undermine the public’s faith in the court, they wrote.

While Merchan has rejected three requests from Trump that he recuse himself from the case because of his daughter’s employment at a company that produces advertising campaigns for Democrats, Trump’s lawyers said delaying the sentencing would help mitigate any potential appearance of a conflict of interest.

Trump’s Democratic rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, continue to discuss the case on the campaign trail. And the founder of the firm where Merchan’s daughter works has expressed his support for Harris on social media, Blanche and Bove wrote.

Election entanglements

The Sept. 18 sentencing is also scheduled “after the commencement of early voting in the Presidential election,” they wrote.

“By adjourning the sentencing until after that election … the Court would reduce, even if not eliminate, issues regarding the integrity of any future proceedings,” they wrote.

Pennsylvania law allows the earliest voting, according to a database compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Pennsylvania counties are permitted to hold early voting 50 days before Election Day, which is Sept. 16.

It is unclear if any counties in the key battleground state are planning to make voting available that soon.

No other states allow voting before Sept. 18, according to the NCSL database. Blanche did not answer an emailed question about what early voting he was referring to in the letter.

Presidential immunity

Trump’s attorneys said the sentencing hearing should also be moved to accommodate another issue in the case: Trump’s presidential immunity argument.

Trump has asked for his conviction to be overturned following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled presidents were entitled to a broad definition of criminal immunity for acts they take in office.

Merchan set a Sept. 16 date to rule on the request the state conviction be set aside, but Trump’s attorneys said that does not leave enough time for Trump to appeal a potentially unfavorable ruling on the immunity issue.

“The requested adjournment is also necessary to allow President Trump adequate time to assess and pursue state and federal appellate options in response to any adverse ruling,” they wrote.

The Supreme Court decision that established presidential immunity arose from a pretrial appeal, they wrote.

A New York jury convicted Trump in May of 34 felony counts of falsified business records, making him the first former president to be convicted of a felony. Trump was accused of sending $130,000, through attorney  Michael Cohen, to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the weeks before the 2016 election to buy her silence about an alleged sexual encounter years earlier.

Merchan initially set sentencing for July 11.

But after the Supreme Court ruled on July 1 that presidents enjoy full immunity from criminal charges for their official acts, the New York judge agreed to delay sentencing to first rule on how the Supreme Court decision affected the New York case.

While much of the conduct alleged in the New York case took place before Trump was in office, his attorneys have argued that the prosecution also included investigations into Oval Office meetings with Cohen that could be impermissible under the Supreme Court’s standard.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz speaks at a Biden-Harris campaign and DNC press conference on July 17 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The press conference was held to address Project 2025 and Republican policies on abortion (Jim Vondruska/Getty Images).

Vice President Kamala Harris selected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate Tuesday in a move meant to boost the Democratic ticket’s appeal in key Midwestern states and with blue-collar voters.

Walz, a former social studies teacher and Army National Guard veteran who won challenging elections in a rural U.S. House district before running for governor in 2018 and winning reelection in 2022, balances Harris geographically and demographically, while bringing a history of campaign wins in purple-to-red areas and a governing record among the most progressive of any contender to join the ticket.

“One of the things that stood out to me about Tim is how his convictions on fighting for middle class families run deep,” Harris wrote in a statement. “It’s personal. As a governor, a coach, a teacher, and a veteran, he’s delivered for working families like his own. We are going to build a great partnership. We start out as underdogs but I believe together, we can win this election.”

Walz was also seen as the preferred vice presidential pick of the party’s progressive wing, especially as an alternative to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. Harris interviewed both governors, and U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, in Washington Sunday as she whittled down her shortlist.

Little known until recently outside his home state to all but the closest political observers, Walz’s laid-back style and approachable demeanor — and straightforward attacks on Republican rivals Donald Trump and J.D. Vance — over weeks of consistent national TV appearances won praise from Democratic officials and strategists who have struggled to break Trump’s hold over white voters without college degrees.

Walz, 60, emerged in recent weeks as one of the party’s top communicators through the power of a single adjective for Republicans and their policy goals.

“These are weird people on the other side,” Walz said in a July 23 interview on MSNBC. “They want to take books away, they want to be in your exam room … These are weird ideas.”

Despite the best efforts of President Joe Biden’s abandoned reelection bid to describe Republicans under Trump’s leadership as a threat to U.S. democracy and reproductive rights who couldn’t be trusted to responsibly govern, the attacks didn’t stick and Trump continued to climb in the polls.

But shortly after Biden’s July 21 exit from the race, Democrats embraced the succinct message that has been credited to the Minnesota governor.

“I am loving Tim Walz on TV,” Rebecca Pearcey, a Democratic strategist, told States Newsroom in a July interview on potential vice presidential picks for Harris.

“I love that he’s just so down-to-earth and so pithy and that he’s like, ‘These guys are weird,’” she added. “That’s exactly it — we are overcomplicating what this message has to be.”

In a statement, Shapiro said he was grateful to have been considered for Harris’ running mate and would continue his work as governor, calling that role “the highest honor” of his life.

Shapiro congratulated Walz, saying he would be an “exceptionally strong addition to the ticket.” He said he would work to help the Harris-Walz ticket win in November.

“Vice President Kamala Harris has my enthusiastic support – and I know that Governor Tim Walz is an exceptionally strong addition to the ticket who will help Kamala move our country forward,” he wrote. “Over the next 92 days, I look forward to traveling all across the Commonwealth to unite Pennsylvanians behind Kamala Harris’ campaign to defeat Donald Trump, become the 47th President of the United States, and build a better future for our country.”

According to his official schedule, Shapiro is scheduled to speak at Walz’s first public appearance with Harris, a rally in Philadelphia Tuesday evening.

‘Far-left radical’

Shortly after reports of the Walz choice surfaced, Trump’s campaign blasted him in a statement that sought to undercut his appeal to rural Midwestern voters and tie him to Harris’ Bay Area background, potentially previewing the attacks Walz will see throughout the three months leading up to Election Day.

“It’s no surprise that San Francisco Liberal Kamala Harris wants West Coast wannabe Tim Walz as her running-mate – Walz has spent his governorship trying to reshape Minnesota in the image of the Golden State,” Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

“If Walz won’t tell voters the truth, we will: just like Kamala Harris, Tim Walz is a dangerously liberal extremist, and the Harris-Walz California dream is every American’s nightmare.”

Leavitt highlighted Walz’s signature on a bill to require the state move to 100% non-carbon energy by 2040.

A political action committee associated with Trump also slammed the Minnesota governor.

A written statement from MAGA Inc. criticized Walz’s positions on transgender rights and immigration, as well as his response to the riots in Minneapolis after police there killed George Floyd, an unarmed Black man.

The PAC also sought to tie Walz to a federal fraud case in the state that saw five convicted in federal court of taking federal COVID-19 relief money intended to feed needy children. The case dealt with a nonprofit, but a June report from the state auditor found the state’s Department of Education failed to properly oversee the federal payments.

“Governor Tim Walz and Kamala Harris will get along just great,” the statement said. “They’re both far-left radicals that don’t know how to govern.”

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is also from San Francisco, said in an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Tuesday that characterizations of Walz as far-left were “mystifying.”

“To characterize him as left is so unreal,” Pelosi said. “He’s right down the middle. He’s a heartland-of-America Democrat.”

As the top Democrat on the U.S. House Veterans Affairs Committee, Walz made “tremendous, tremendous gains” for veterans, Pelosi said.

Communicating rural values

Walz, who grew up in a rural community in Nebraska, has slammed national Republicans for a relentless focus on cultural issues. He’s trained that criticism recently on Vance, a U.S. senator from Ohio whose rise to Republican vice presidential nominee was built on his controversial book detailing the lives of people in impoverished rural areas of Kentucky.

Vance and Republicans have “obsessions” with taking away rights, Walz has said, especially related to reproductive rights and education that includes discussion of gender and sexuality.

“The golden rule that makes small towns work so we’re not at each other’s throats all the time in a little town is: Mind your own damn business,” Walz told MSNBC’s Jen Psaki on July 25. “I don’t need him (Vance) to tell me about my family, I don’t need him to tell me about my wife’s health care and her reproductive rights, I don’t need him telling my children what books to read.”

Walz instead projects a pragmatic vision of Democratic governance.

“They scream socialism, we just build roads and we build schools and we build prosperity into this,” he told Psaki.

Working-class message

As governor, Walz has notched a series of policy wins he can boast to the party’s progressive wing about. He signed laws to offer free meals to all public school students, expand abortion access and legalize some recreational uses of THC.

But the sometimes bespectacled former high school teacher and football coach, who has donned t-shirts and hunting caps in national TV hits, also projects an image of Midwestern pragmatism.

That may help balance voters’ views of a Democratic ticket led by Harris, who would be the first woman president, the first president of South Asian descent and the second Black president, and who is seen as more liberal than most in the party after climbing the ranks through Democratic primaries in California.

Christopher Devine, a political scientist at the University of Dayton, said Walz’s appeal is not unlike that of Harris’ last running mate.

“Walz has a message that kind of reminds me of Joe Biden’s appeal, kind of a working-class focus,” he said. “He can speak from a rural background, he’s been a teacher and a coach and has a military background as well. He seems to me like he’s someone who could maybe help with kind of a working-class message.”

The campaign will depend on Walz to carry that message to neighboring Wisconsin and other crucial Rust Belt states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Kim Lyons contributed to this report.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he arrives to court for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30, 2024 in New York City (Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images)

The Democratic National Committee will unveil a confrontational digital ad campaign in battleground states, starting Friday in Atlanta, to press Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to debate Vice President Kamala Harris, the likely Democratic nominee, States Newsroom has learned.

Trump has not committed to debating Harris, who has said she is eager to keep a Sept. 10 debate date that was negotiated before she entered the race.

The ads, which will blanket major newspaper websites in battleground states where Trump is campaigning, starting with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, call the former president “afraid to debate” Harris, according to a news release from the DNC.

The DNC plans to replicate the ads running in Atlanta on the websites of other major newspapers in swing states on days Trump will be stumping in those states. The ads will generally run the day of a Trump campaign event, but the first ads in Atlanta will run for two days, Friday and Saturday, ahead of a Trump appearance there Saturday, a DNC spokesperson said.

The unusual ad buy highlights parts of Trump’s record that Democrats have been hammering throughout the campaign, including a conservative policy blueprint known as Project 2025 that calls for a nationwide abortion ban and the 34 New York state felony charges Trump was convicted of in May.

“Trump is a convicted felon whose Project 2025 would ban abortion nationwide,” one banner ad shared with States Newsroom before its launch reads. “No wonder he’s afraid to debate.”

Trump and his campaign have worked to distance the candidate from Project 2025, which was created by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, but have not produced a comprehensive policy document to replace it.

Debate about debates

Trump agreed in May to two debates with President Joe Biden, then the presumptive Democratic nominee. But weeks after Biden’s poor performance in the first, on June 27, the incumbent dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris to replace him on the top of the Democratic ticket.

Trump campaign communications director Steven Cheung said in a July 25 statement that Trump’s agreement to debate on Sept. 10 did not necessarily hold after Biden’s withdrawal, saying the Democratic nomination was still unsettled.

Harris is the only candidate for the Democratic nomination, which will be finalized during a virtual roll call of Democratic delegates that started Thursday. She is scheduled to accept the Democratic nomination at the party’s convention this month in Chicago.

The ads represent an escalation in Democrats’ pressure campaign to get Trump on a debate stage with Harris.

At her own Atlanta rally on Wednesday, hours after Trump made an unfounded comment about Harris’ racial identity, Harris challenged the former president to debate her.

“Donald, I do hope you’ll reconsider to meet me on the debate stage,” she said. “Because as the saying goes, if you got something to say, say it to my face.”

The Sept. 10 debate was set to air on ABC with moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News. Further details, including location, were set to be announced closer to that date.

Democrats have said Harris will still participate in the debate whether Trump shows or not.

“No matter where Trump is on September 10, voters know where he stands,” DNC communications director Rosemary Boeglin said in a written statement. “Meanwhile, Vice President Harris will be on the debate stage to offer America the path forward – giving voters the choice to reject Trump’s MAGA extremism once and for all.”

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks on gun violence during an event at John R. Lewis High School on June 2, 2023 in Springfield, Virginia. (Alex Wong/Getty Images).

Vice President Kamala Harris is the only candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Democratic National Committee said late Tuesday.

Harris was the only person to reach the threshold of 300 delegates petitioning for her to become the party’s nominee after President Joe Biden dropped his bid for reelection, setting her up to officially become the party’s nominee during a virtual roll call scheduled to begin Thursday, according to a DNC press release.

The DNC allowed party delegates to petition for a new nominee after Biden’s withdrawal. After sweeping primaries and caucuses, Biden had secured the vast majority of the 3,949 pledged delegates in the Democratic nominating process. Most of those delegates quickly declared their support for Harris following Biden’s exit.

About 84% of Democratic delegates submitted a signature during the petition phase, with 99% of those supporting Harris. A total of 3,923 Democratic delegates petitioned for Harris to be the presidential nominee, according to the release, which called Harris the presumptive Democratic nominee.

“Democratic delegates from across the nation made their voices heard, overwhelmingly backing Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee,” DNC Chair Jaime Harrison and Democratic National Convention Committee Chair Minyon Moore said in the statement.

Harris won the backing of many state parties, elected officials and other party leaders within hours of Biden bowing out of the race and endorsing her. Candidates rumored to harbor their own presidential ambitions quickly fell in line with Harris, with a few still thought to be under consideration for Harris’ running mate.

Democrats’ virtual roll call – a departure from the traditional roll call at the party convention initially designed to ensure the party’s nominee was on the ballot in Ohio despite an early deadline that has since been changed – will begin 9 a.m. Eastern on Thursday and wrap up at 6 p.m. on Aug. 5, the DNC release said.

Harris and running mate to Philadelphia

Harris will campaign on Aug. 6, the day after the virtual roll call concludes, with her yet-to-be-named running mate in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Capital-Star confirmed Tuesday.

The commonwealth is perhaps the most important battleground in the presidential race and Gov. Josh Shapiro is reportedly on Harris’ short list for vice president. The first-term governor and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer stumped for Harris at a Monday rally in the Philadelphia area.

Politico reported that the Harris campaign swing will also include western Wisconsin; Detroit; Raleigh, North Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; Las Vegas; and Phoenix.

Other top candidates for Harris’ running mate include Arizona U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, with Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also under consideration.

Pinellas County residents go to cast their voting ballots at the Coliseum polling precinct on Nov. 8, 2022 in St. Petersburg, Florida (Octavio Jones/Getty Images).

Voter intimidation, an exodus of election workers fed up with harassment and continued misinformation and disinformation campaigns threaten the integrity of the November elections, officials with the government watchdog group Common Cause said Tuesday.

This year will be the first presidential election since “the big lie,” Common Cause President Virginia Kase Solomón said on a video call with reporters.

She was referring to the effort by then-President Donald Trump and his allies to undermine Trump’s reelection loss in 2020 by promoting a series of unfounded conspiracy theories and encouraging supporters to obstruct Congress’ certification of the results on Jan. 6, 2021.

Common Cause is a nonpartisan organization and Solomón and other speakers did not mention Trump, who is again the Republican nominee for president, by name.

But Solomón said the country’s election integrity was damaged by the 2020 experience, with many veteran election workers opting to leave the profession rather than deal with the threats and harassment from believers in election conspiracies.

“We’re still living with the legacy of those lies,” she said. “They’ve undermined the faith of many Americans in our elections and fed anger and heated rhetoric … Those lies have also led to threats and harassment to election officials who have seen massive turnover in their ranks.”

On top of those challenges, election workers and voters also must deal this cycle with improving generative artificial intelligence tools that make disinformation easier than ever, Common Cause experts said.

And state laws, such as a measure that went into effect in Florida after the 2022 elections to cancel automatic delivery of vote-by-mail ballots, promise further confusion and disenfranchisement, they said.

To combat those threats to election integrity, the group is gearing up for campaign-season education drives.

Threats of violence

Instances of actual political violence remain rare, Suzanne Almeida, a Common Cause director of state operations who also leads the group’s work on political violence, said.

But threats, militant language, doxing and other harassment continue, Almeida said.

That has affected election workers, with a recent study from the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice finding that 38% of election workers had experienced threats and more than half of local election officials feared for their safety.

While surveys, including a recent University of California-Davis study, show that voters of both parties reject political violence, “candidates who have large platforms” have used them to drive turnout, Almeida said.

“We are seeing the normalization of hate, violent rhetoric, violent threats and harassment as a viable political strategy,” she said.

A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not respond to a message seeking comment Tuesday.

AI and misinformation

Intentional efforts to disinform voters and accidental spreading of misinformation remain a growing problem, Common Cause’s media and democracy program director Ishan Mehta said.

The expansion and improvement of generative artificial intelligence makes it easier to create and spread fraudulent campaign content.

“The ubiquity of these tools means that you don’t have to be a computer expert anymore to have misinformation that would convince a lot, over half the population,” Mehta said.

Social media platforms that surged misinformation enforcement after Jan. 6 have now backed off enforcing misinformation, he said.

Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X, tweeted a doctored video of likely Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris over the weekend. Musk, who has endorsed Trump, bought the platform in 2022. He boasts 192 million followers.

Florida law

Amy Keith, the executive director of Common Cause Florida, said recent changes to state election law will create confusion and deprive some voters of ballots.

More than 1.9 million Floridians who received a mail-in ballot in 2022 will not receive one this cycle, she said. The state enacted a law after that election that required voters to send new requests for mail-in ballots with additional identification.

“Even if some of those 1.9 million people might not wish to vote by mail this year, we know that thousands and thousands of Florida voters are likely expecting a mail ballot to arrive in their mailbox,” she said. “And it isn’t going to.”

Ahead of the state’s Aug. 20 primary, Common Cause and allied groups are “really working to spread the message” to voters that they need to request a mail-in ballot if they wish to vote that way, and that they can vote in person even if they have requested a mail ballot, Keith said.

Deploying poll monitors

While predicting widespread violence on Election Day would not happen, Common Cause Pennsylvania Executive Director Philip Hensley-Robin anticipated some instances of political violence or intimidation.

The group would send “hundreds of poll monitors” across the commonwealth to record such instances, with monitors who will also be trained in deescalation, he said.

Hensley-Robin began his remarks by acknowledging the “tragic events” of the assassination attempt on Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, but said the “isolated incident” would not deter voters from turning out.

He also anticipated that some would mount “spurious” lawsuits to “disenfranchise voters and undermine public confidence” in the election, but predicted those would be quickly dismissed.

Trump’s campaign lost scores of lawsuits challenging 2020 election results.

Voter outreach

Solomón said Common Cause would be reminding voters to be on the lookout for misinformation and disinformation, especially from AI, and that it’s likely Election Day will end without a clear winner in the presidential race, a situation that has encouraged conspiracy theories about election fraud.

“That’s not a sign that anything is wrong,” she said.

The group will also be in touch with election workers to understand their needs and to offer assistance, she said.

She added that democracy had to be proactive.

“In the 2020 election, I think there was a false narrative that came out of that, and that was that democracy held and did what it was supposed to do,” she said. “And one of the things that I like to remind people of is that democracy did not hold. We made it hold.”

A supporter holds a sign as members of the San Francisco Democratic Party rally in support of Kamala Harris, following the announcement by President Joe Biden that he is dropping out of the 2024 presidential race, on July 22, 2024 at City Hall in San Francisco, California. Biden has endorsed Harris, the former San Francisco district attorney, to be the Democratic nominee (Loren Elliott/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Vice President Kamala Harris’ path to the Democratic nomination cleared Monday as she secured endorsements from potential rivals and other high-profile party members the day after President Joe Biden ended his reelection bid.

A swarm of Democratic legislative leaders, governors ­— including some thought to harbor presidential ambitions of their own — and influential unions as well as key outside groups endorsed her within 24 hours of Biden’s unscheduled Sunday afternoon announcement, while no serious challenger emerged.

In Harris’ first public appearance since Biden’s announcement and endorsement of her, the vice president met with college sports champions at the White House. She opened her brief remarks with a tribute to Biden, who, while recovering from COVID-19, was “feeling much better” Monday, she said.

“Joe Biden’s legacy of accomplishment over the past three years is unmatched in modern history,” she said. “In one term, he has already surpassed the legacy of most presidents who have served two terms in office.”

Harris was also scheduled to travel to the campaign headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, late Monday to meet with campaign staff, according to the White House.

Several key Democrats had not publicly backed her by Monday afternoon. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York and former President Barack Obama had not offered endorsements.

Jeffries told reporters that he and Schumer were planning to meet with Harris “shortly.” While Jeffries did not endorse Harris, he said she has “excited the House Democratic Caucus and she’s exciting the country.”

Congressional Dems line up behind Harris 

But endorsements rolled in from Capitol Hill.

Top congressional Democrats like the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and the No. 2 House Democrat, Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, also early Monday gave Harris their support.

And former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said in a statement that she supported Harris and noted her work advocating for reproductive rights — a topic that Democrats have centered various campaigns on following the end of Roe v. Wade.

“Politically, make no mistake,” Pelosi said. “Kamala Harris as a woman in politics is brilliantly astute — and I have full confidence that she will lead us to victory in November.”

The chair of the campaign arm for House Democrats, Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, also gave her support to Harris.

Harris has also earned the backing of all the House Democratic leaders of influential congressional caucuses.

That includes Reps. Steven Horsford of Nevada of the Congressional Black Caucus, Nanette Barragán of California of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Pramila Jayapal of Washington of the Progressive Caucus and Judy Chu of California of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Obama holds off

Obama did not yet endorse Harris but in a lengthy statement Sunday said he has “extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges.”

Similarly, in 2020 the former two-term president waited until Biden was formally nominated by the Democratic National Committee before he gave an endorsement.

The DNC will move forward with the process to formally nominate a presidential candidate Wednesday when its Rules Committee meets in a public virtual session amid ongoing efforts to set up a virtual roll call vote ahead of the convention next month in Chicago.

No serious challenger to Harris’ nomination had emerged by Monday afternoon, as independent Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia said in a morning MSNBC interview he would not seek the Democratic nomination.

Governors endorse Harris

Following Biden’s endorsement of Harris, several Democratic governors have also offered their support for the vice president, including the governors speculated to be among Harris’ choices for a running mate and would-be rivals for the nomination.

Govs. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Wes Moore of Maryland and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois all offered their endorsements in the day since Biden withdrew from the race.

Beshear announced his support for Harris in a television interview Monday morning. He wouldn’t say if he’d like to join Harris’ ticket, but said in a statement on X that the vice president will “bring our country together and move us past the anger politics we’ve seen in recent years.”

Other governors around the country also offered their support, including Jared Polis of Colorado, Tony Evers of Wisconsin, Phil Murphy of New Jersey, Laura Kelly of Kansas, Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, Tim Walz of Minnesota, Katie Hobbs of Arizona, Janet Mills of Maine, Jay Inslee of Washington state, and Maura Healey of Massachusetts.

Governors from Oregon and Rhode Island, both Democrats, have yet to voice their support for Harris. Both thanked Biden for his service as president on X.

State parties planning next moves

Several state parties endorsed Harris or indicated they would support her.

North Carolina Democrats voted to endorse a ticket of Harris and Cooper, their term-limited governor, NC Newsline reported.

At Beshear’s request, Kentucky Democrats voted “overwhelmingly” to back Harris, the Kentucky Lantern reported.

New Hampshire’s state party coalesced behind Harris at a Sunday evening meeting, according to the New Hampshire Bulletin.

Maine Democrats were scheduled to meet Monday night and are likely to consider a proposal to switch the party’s support from Biden to Harris, the Maine Morning Star said.

Advocacy groups 

Several influential Democrat-aligned organizations announced their support for Harris.

Emily’s List, which works to elect Democratic women who favor abortion rights, tweeted its endorsement Sunday.

LGBTQ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign also backed Harris, noting her early support for marriage equality and other work on LGBTQ issues.

UnidosUS, a Latino civil rights group, also endorsed Harris.

Gen-Z for Change, formerly called TikTok for Biden, had withheld an endorsement of the president over his handling of the Israel-Hamas war in which more than 39,000 Palestinians have been killed. But quickly following the announcement from Biden to step out of the race, the organization gave an endorsement to Harris.

The political action committees of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus also backed Harris.

Several unions jump in

Harris has also garnered the backing of several labor unions in the day since announcing her bid for office. The Service Employees International Union, which represents 2 million service workers including health care and property and public services, announced its endorsement for Harris Sunday.

In a written statement, SEIU President April Verrett said “SEIU is ALL IN” for Harris and that the vice president “has made sure to use every lever of government to do everything possible to make things better for working people.”

The American Federation of Teachers unanimously endorsed Harris Sunday. AFT represents 1.7 million education professionals across the country, ranging from teachers and paraprofessionals to school health care workers and higher education faculty.

The United Farm Workers also quickly switched its support from Biden to Harris on Sunday afternoon. The union said it “could not be prouder to endorse her for President of the United States,” in a written statement, citing her support of farm workers during her time as an attorney general and senator in California.

SEIU, AFT and UFW all endorsed Biden for president in 2020 and this year prior to his withdrawal from the race.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has not endorsed in the presidential race, but invited Harris to a roundtable with rank-and-file members. Teamsters President Sean O’Brien addressed the Republican National Convention last week. The union endorsed Biden in 2020 but had not voiced its support for his reelection this year.

Notably, the UAW has not announced an endorsement for Harris. Biden walked the picket line in Michigan during the historic autoworker protests last September. The UAW thanked Biden for his service in a statement Sunday.

U.S. President Joe Biden departs the White House on July 15, 2024 in Washington, DC. Biden was traveling to Las Vegas, Nevada to deliver remarks at the NAACP National Convention and the UnidosUS Annual Conference (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential race Sunday, he said in a letter posted to social media, creating an unprecedented vacancy atop the Democratic ticket one month before he was scheduled to officially accept his party’s nomination.

In a followup post less than 30 minutes later, Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place as the Democratic nominee.

Biden’s withdrawal came after a weeks-long pressure campaign from party insiders following a disastrous June 27 debate performance against GOP candidate former President Donald Trump.

The move throws an already-unusual presidential race into further chaos, and it was not immediately clear Sunday how Democrats would choose a replacement for Biden in November’s election, though Harris would have a strong claim to lead the ticket.

Biden praised Harris as “an extraordinary partner” in the administration’s accomplishments.

Biden, who has been fighting a COVID-19 infection at home in Delaware since last week, was not specific about his reasons for stepping aside, but said he believed it was in the country’s best interest.

“It has been the great honor of my life to serve as your President,” he wrote in the one-page letter. “And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”

Biden, 81, appeared frail and confused at several points throughout the debate, leading to worries among elected Democrats and the party’s voters that he was no longer up to the task of governing or contesting Trump’s bid to win back the White House.

As several congressional Democrats called for him to quit the race, others asked that he ramp up his public schedule and include more unrehearsed appearances that could demonstrate his fitness.

But a more robust schedule of news interviews, press conferences and campaign rallies did not sufficiently quiet the Democratic voices saying Biden’s candidacy was likely to throw the presidential race to Trump – whom Biden and others have described as an existential threat to U.S. democracy – and deeply handicap Democrats in other races up and down November’s ballot.

On Friday, Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico brought the number of senators calling on Biden to drop out to four. A day earlier, Montana Sen. Jon Tester said Biden should drop his reelection campaign and that Democrats should hold an open nomination process at their Chicago convention next month.

In the U.S. House, 29 Democrats had called for Biden to withdraw from the race by the end of the day July 19.

In a post following the announcement to his social media site, Truth Social, Trump said Biden was “never” fit to serve as president.

“Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President, and is certainly not fit to serve – And never was!” Trump wrote. “He only attained the position of President by lies, Fake News, and not leaving his Basement. All those around him, including his Doctor and the Media, knew that he wasn’t capable of being President, and he wasn’t – And now, look what he’s done to our Country.”

More details of announcement

In the letter, Biden praised his administration’s accomplishments over three-and-a-half years, saying he’d worked to make “historic investments” in the country, lowered prescription drug costs, nominated the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court and “passed the most significant climate legislation in the history of the world.”

“Together we overcame a once in a century pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,”  Biden wrote. “We’ve protected and preserved our Democracy. And we’ve revitalized and strengthened our alliances around the world.”

Biden said he would “speak to the Nation later this week” about the decision.

He praised Harris and other supporters.

“For now, let me express my deepest gratitude to all those who have worked so hard to see me reelected,” he wrote. “I want to thank Vice President Kamala Harris for being an extraordinary partner in all this work. And let me express my heartfelt appreciation to the American people for the faith and trust you have placed in me.”

In follow-up posts, Biden said he was endorsing Harris and added a fundraising link.

“My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President,” he said. “And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”

Trump gains in polls

The about face in what was to be a 2020 presidential election rematch leaves Democrats searching for a new candidate as Trump, who promises authoritarian-style leadership, has gained support in recent polls.

With just 107 days until Election Day, Biden’s move marks the latest date in modern presidential history that a candidate has withdrawn from the race.

President Lyndon Johnson announced in March 1968 that he would not seek reelection that year, leaving Democratic delegates to decide on a replacement – ultimately Vice President Hubert Humphrey – at the party’s convention that summer in Chicago.

Harris appears to be in a strong position to replace Biden as the party’s standard bearer, though questions remain about how the process will play out and who would become the vice presidential nominee.

Democrats praise decision

Reaction poured in shortly after the Sunday afternoon announcement, with Democrats largely praising Biden’s record and calling his decision courageous.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that he understood Biden’s decision to step out of the race was “not easy, but he once again put his country, his party, and our future first.”

“Joe Biden has not only been a great president and a great legislative leader but he is a truly amazing human being,” the New York Democrat said.

Several Republicans called for Biden to resign his office.

“If Joe Biden is not fit to run for President, he is not fit to serve as President,” House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on X. “He must resign the office immediately. November 5 cannot arrive soon enough.”

A crescendoing chorus to step down

Biden faced calls for him to abandon his reelection bid from congressional Democrats, even as he tried to stabilize the debate aftershock by holding a series of campaign rallies, sitting down for interviews and holding a press conference at the annual NATO conference.

Democratic lawmakers largely presented a public front of support for Biden in statements and passing interviews in the U.S. Capitol hallways with reporters.

What began as a trickle of dissent from rank-and-file Democrats — beginning with Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas and a handful of doubtful senior House Democrats — steadily grew to a torrent by Friday.

50-year career in Washington

Biden’s exit marks the closure of a long, storied career in Washington, including 38 years in the U.S. Senate, featuring stints leading the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary committees, and eight years as vice president under President Barack Obama.

Biden’s presidency was punctuated with major economic wins for Democrats, beginning with nearly $2 trillion to combat the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic.

His leadership with a Democratic majority in Congress resulted in substantial nationwide infrastructure investments, drove financial incentives to tackle climate change and revive the U.S. global role in semiconductor manufacturing, and strengthened flagging tax enforcement.

However, low approval ratings followed Biden throughout his presidency as Americans aimed their frustrations over inflation at the White House and assigned blame for record numbers of border crossings as a divided Congress – after Democrats lost their House majority in the 2022 midterms – failed to pass immigration restrictions negotiated with the administration.

Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war also hurt his support among young and progressive voters as Israel’s continued offensive against Hamas militants in the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip killed tens of thousands of civilians. Protesters against the U.S. supply of weapons to Israel interrupted dozens of Biden’s reelection campaign events through 2024.

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

President Joe Biden speaks at the 115th NAACP National Convention at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center on July 16, 2024 in Las Vegas, Nevada. It was Biden’s last event before he left the campaign trail due to testing positive for COVID-19 (Mario Tama/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Ten more congressional Democrats called on President Joe Biden to drop his reelection bid Friday, the most in a single day since a poor debate performance shook confidence among his fellow Democrats in his ability to win November’s election.

The 10 Democrats on Friday, the day after former President Donald Trump officially accepted his party’s nomination at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, brought the total to 31, increasing the pressure on Biden to withdraw from the race.

While no member of congressional Democratic leadership has publicly called for Biden to step down, several top Democrats who were either involved with handling Trump’s impeachment trials or with investigations into the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol have raised their concerns, citing the former president’s threat to democracy.

California Rep. Adam Schiff, who was the lead impeachment manager in Trump’s first impeachment trial, called on Biden to drop out, saying in a statement that he had “serious concerns” about the president’s ability to win a second term.

And Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who was a member of the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, stopped short of explicitly calling on Biden to step down, but urged the president to reconsider whether he should remain in the presidential race.

Biden remained at home in Delaware with no public events scheduled after testing positive for COVID-19 on Wednesday evening.

In an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” early Friday, Biden campaign co-chair Jen O’Malley Dillon said the president remained “absolutely” in the race, even as a growing number of Democrats voiced unease about his ability to defeat Trump.

“Absolutely the president is in this race, you’ve heard him say that time and time again,” she said. “He is the best person to take on Donald Trump.”

But reports also surfaced Friday that Vice President Kamala Harris, a potential replacement for Biden if he takes the unprecedented step of withdrawing from a race less than four months from Election Day, was scheduled to speak by phone with top Democratic donors in the afternoon.

Harris did not respond to reporters’ questions at an appearance at a Washington ice cream shop Friday, according to a pool report.

And 10 more congressional Democrats, including more senior members than had previously broken ranks with the president, said Friday that Biden should step aside.

U.S. Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune.

Reps. Jared Huffman of California, Marc Veasey of Texas, Jesús “Chuy” Garcia of Illinois and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin wrote a joint open letter to Biden that they posted on social media.

The quartet represents important constituencies in the House Democratic Caucus.

Veasey is the first member of the influential Congressional Black Caucus, which has been among Biden’s staunchest Democratic backers, to join the call for him to step down. He is also a member of the moderate New Democrat Coalition.

Pocan is the co-chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus and a former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Garcia is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Reps. Greg Landsman of Ohio, Zoe Lofgren of California also released their own statements. Betty McCollum of Minnesota told the Star Tribune newspaper she wanted Biden step aside and allow Harris to lead the ticket with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate.

Rep. Morgan McGarvey, of Kentucky, posted a statement on X.

The calls came a day after Sen. Jon Tester, in a difficult reelection race in Montana, said in a statement to the Daily Montanan that Biden should withdraw.

Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, who was one of few Democrats who called on Biden to step down two weeks ago, expanded on his view in an op-ed Friday.

Moulton wrote in the Boston Globe that when he went on a June trip to Normandy to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-Day, the president didn’t recognize him, despite their decade-long relationship.

“Of course, that can happen as anyone ages, but as I watched the disastrous debate a few weeks ago, I have to admit that what I saw in Normandy was part of a deeper problem,” Moulton wrote. “It was a crushing realization, and not because a person I care about had a rough night but because everything is riding on Biden’s ability to beat Donald Trump in November.”

President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt in February at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, California. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

President Joe Biden called for a de-escalation in political rhetoric but kept up criticism of former President Donald Trump on Monday, in Biden’s first interview since a Saturday assassination attempt on Trump.

Talking to NBC News anchor Lester Holt, Biden said he called the injured Trump on Saturday to convey his well wishes.

But he argued to Holt that Trump, whom Republicans officially nominated as their presidential candidate at their convention Monday, remains a threat to U.S. democracy who routinely employed violent rhetoric and led an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Biden said it was a mistake to use the word “bullseye” on a call with Democratic donors last week, when telling them to concentrate on the Republican candidate instead of the fallout from Biden’s poor debate performance.

Many elected officials and fundraisers after the debate wondered if Biden should withdraw from his reelection campaign.

“I meant focus on him,” Biden said of Trump. “Focus on what he’s doing. Focus on his policies.”

The former president survived a shooting on Saturday that killed one person and left two others injured at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. The gunman was killed at the scene.

Biden said he did not intentionally use violent rhetoric, but did not apologize or back down from his criticisms of Trump as a “threat to democracy.”

“How do you talk about the threat to democracy, which is real, when a president says things like he says?” Biden said.

“I’m not engaged in that rhetoric,” Biden said. “My opponent is engaged in that rhetoric, talking about there will be a bloodbath if he loses.”

He also noted Trump said he would commute the sentences of those convicted for attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and mocked then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband after he was assaulted by a man with a hammer during a home invasion.

“This doesn’t sound like you’re turning down the heat,” Holt said.

Biden responded that some ideas that Trump champions — continuing to challenge the 2020 election results despite losing in dozens of court cases, demanding a loyalty pledge from Republicans, calling political opponents “vermin” and saying he would be a dictator on day one of a second term — were antithetical to democracy.

Biden focused especially on the Jan. 6 attack, when a mob of Trump supporters sought to stop Congress and Vice President Mike Pence from certifying Biden’s 2020 victory over then-President Trump.

“When you say there’s nothing wrong with going to the Capitol, breaking in, threatening people, a couple cops dying, putting up a noose and gallows for the former vice president, and then you say you’re going to forgive people for that? That you’re going to pardon them?” Biden said.

“Violence is never appropriate,” he said. “Never, never, never, never, never in politics.”

He pledged to “keep talking about the issues” and chastised Holt and the rest of the news media for what he said was a lack of focus on real policy issues.

“Sometime come and talk to me about what we should be talking about, OK? The issues,” Biden said at the close of the roughly 20-minute interview.

Classified documents charges

Holt asked Biden about the news earlier Monday that Judge Aileen Cannon, a federal judge in South Florida, dismissed the charges against Trump in a case accusing him of improperly storing classified documents from his presidency.

Biden said he felt the decision from a Trump-appointed federal judge was reached in error.

“I’m not surprised,” Biden said. “But my generic point is that … the basis upon which the case was thrown out, I find specious.”

Debate fallout

Asked by Holt if he’d “weathered the storm” of Democratic discontent over his June 27 debate performance that shook confidence in his candidacy, Biden said he was staying in the race, citing his victories in primaries and caucuses that didn’t see a serious challenge to his reelection.

“Look, 14 million people voted for me to be the nominee in the Democratic Party, OK?” Biden said. “I listen to them.”

Biden again conceded he’d “had a bad, bad night” at the debate, but told Holt that news reports should have paid more attention to Trump’s performance.

“I screwed up,” Biden said. “Why didn’t the press cover all the lies he told?”

Asked about comments from senior members of his party in Congress, including Pelosi and former No. 3 House Democrat Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, seeming to leave open the possibility he could step aside, Biden said he remained ready to campaign on a strong record.

The race remains close even after the poor debate, Biden said. He added that he’s had one of the most successful presidencies since Franklin Roosevelt nearly 100 years ago.

“I’ve gotten more done than any president has in a long, long time in three-and-a-half years, so I’m willing to be judged on that.”

Biden, 81, said he understood the concerns about his age and called it a “legitimate question” to ask how he would perform over the next four years.

But when Holt asked if Biden was motivated to “get back on the horse” and debate Trump again “in the next few weeks,” Biden pushed back, noting a packed public schedule since the debate.

“I’m on the horse,” he told the interviewer. “Where you been?”

Vance pick

Trump’s choice of U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio as his running mate showed that he would surround himself “with people who agree completely with him,” Biden said.

Holt noted Vance has made comments about Biden, but the president urged Holt to examine Vance’s comments about Trump. In 2016, as a private citizen with a somewhat public profile as a businessperson and memoirist, Vance made several harsh comments about Trump.

Biden expressed some frustration that Holt did not seem interested in that history.

“He said some things about me, but see what he said about Trump,” Biden said. “What’s with you guys? Come on, man.”

The president said Vance has endorsed Republican positions to severely restrict abortion, cut taxes on high-income earners and to deny climate change.

President Joe Biden delivers remarks on former U.S. President Donald Trump’s guilty verdict in his hush-money trial before speaking on the Middle East at the White House on May 31, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

President Joe Biden faced perhaps the most consequential day yet for his ailing reelection campaign Thursday, with a press conference at the NATO annual meeting scheduled for late afternoon, as private talks among Democrats on Capitol Hill about his fitness for office extended and calls for him to withdraw from the race spread.

Biden’s solo press conference is his first since a disastrous June 27 debate performance shook his party’s confidence in his chances to defeat former President Donald Trump in November’s election.

Elected Democrats have urged Biden to hold more unscripted events to show his frail and sometimes incoherent showing at the debate was an isolated incident.

Biden has argued that the concerns voiced since the debate have come from party “elites.”

But a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll published Wednesday night showed he had much deeper problems with Democratic voters. By a 42%-26% margin, Democratic respondents said Biden should step aside rather than continue his campaign.

The same survey showed 77% of Democrats would be satisfied with Vice President Kamala Harris taking over at the top of the ticket, though a majority of all respondents, 53%, said they would be unsatisfied.

Defections on the Hill

Top Biden campaign surrogates will meet with Senate Democrats Thursday, hoping to quell their anxiety.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York spoke to reporters early Thursday afternoon. He did not take a position on Biden, saying the process was ongoing and conversations were private.

“I’m going to respect the sanctity of those conversations until we conclude the process,” he said.

Jeffries earlier pledged to relay the concerns of some of his members directly to Biden, according to reports.

Eleven Democratic members of Congress, including Michigan Rep. Hillary Scholten on Thursday, have publicly called for Biden to leave the race and allow a Democrat with a better chance of defeating Trump to lead the ticket.

Wednesday’s defections, like the others that have trickled out for nearly two weeks since Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett made the first public call July 2, came from various corners of the party without a discernible ideological, geographic or electoral pattern.

In that single day, they were: Rep. Pat Ryan, a youthful moderate in a hypercompetitive reelection race in a New York swing district; progressive Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat from a deep-blue district who is retiring at year’s end after nearly three decades in the chamber; and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, the first member of the Senate ­— Biden’s professional home for 38 years — to call for the president to withdraw.

Biden also lost the support of a major Democratic campaign contributor, movie star George Clooney, who just last month hosted a massive fundraiser for the reelection effort. But Clooney wrote in a New York Times op-ed Wednesday that Biden’s appearance at that event more closely resembled the struggling debater than the successful candidate of 2020.

The calls to step aside have generally focused on the danger Democrats believe Trump poses. The former president, deeply unpopular in his own right, will be the first convicted felon to be a major party’s nominee, has voiced plans to take an authoritarian approach in his second presidency and is accused of leading a violent effort to overturn his election loss in 2020.

“This is not just about extending (Biden’s) presidency but protecting democracy,” Blumenauer wrote.

Top Democrats in Congress have not publicly broken with the president but have sometimes given less-than-full endorsements.

Early Wednesday, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, a revered leader among Democrats in Washington, appeared to leave space for Biden to exit the race, saying in an MSNBC interview that Biden must “make a decision” about staying in the race — despite consistent messages from the president that he has, in fact, decided to continue.

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden return to the White House on July 7, 2024 in Washington, D.C. Members of Congress return to Washington this week as pressure for Biden to withdraw as the Democratic nominee for the presidency continues to mount (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

President Joe Biden pledged Monday to stay in his race for reelection, even after a weekend in which a growing number of Democrats asked for him to withdraw and a key U.S. House Republican called for an investigation into the president’s doctor.

In a letter to congressional Democrats, Biden argued that the calls for him to drop out of the presidential race — with just 119 days until Election Day — ignored the results of Democratic primaries and caucuses that he handily won and said he remained the best candidate to defeat former President Donald Trump.

The two-page letter ended with a call for party unity and an end to the public back-and-forth among Democrats over whether Biden should leave the race, after a June 27 debate performance that shook some high-ranking Democrats’ confidence in his ability to overcome his polling deficit against Trump.

“The question of how to move forward has been well-aired for over a week now,” Biden wrote. “And it’s time for it to end. We have one job. And that is to beat Donald Trump.”

Comer seeks interview with Biden doctor

Congress returns Monday from a weeklong July Fourth recess after several days in which members of both parties continued to press the issue of Biden’s fitness for office.

Republicans also began pressing for more details. House Oversight and Accountability Chair James Comer on Sunday called for Biden’s physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, to submit to a transcribed interview about his assessments of Biden and O’Connor’s business dealings with James Biden, the president’s brother.

The Kentucky Republican said Biden and the White House had sent mixed messages about recent medical examinations of the president.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters last week that Biden had not been examined by a doctor since his regular checkup in February.

But Biden told a group of Democratic governors the same day that he was “checked out by a doctor” following the debate, Comer wrote.

Following the debate, Biden, attempting to explain a low, raspy voice, said he’d had a cold.

Comer also questioned if O’Connor could accurately report Biden’s health, or if he was compromised by a conflict of interest because of his involvement with James Biden’s rural health care company, Americore. James Biden has testified to the committee that he sought O’Connor’s counsel for the business.

The White House did not respond to a message seeking comment about Comer’s request.

More Democrats call for withdrawal

The holiday weekend also saw more U.S. House Democrats join a list of those asking Biden to step aside rather than seek reelection.

In a written statement on Saturday, Minnesota’s Angie Craig became the first member from a competitive district to call on the president to quit the race. Craig is the fifth member to publicly call for the president’s withdrawal.

Additional members are making private calls, according to media reports.

Four Democrats who lead House committees — Jerry Nadler of New York on the Judiciary Committee, Adam Smith of Washington on the Armed Services Committee, Mark Takano of California on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee and Joe Morelle of New York on the House Administration Committee — said during a caucus leadership call on Sunday that Biden should withdraw, according to reports.

Other accounts reported more members on the call, including Susan Wild of Pennsylvania and Jim Himes of Connecticut, also opposed Biden’s continued candidacy. Wild later told the Pennsylvania Capital-Star she expressed concerns about Biden’s electability.

In an impromptu call in to the MSNBC show “Morning Joe” on Monday, Biden insisted again he was staying in the race and called for any opponents he had to “challenge” him at the party’s convention in Chicago next month.

Biden, who has secured enough pledged delegates through primary and caucus wins to clinch the nomination, would be heavily favored in a contested convention. Democratic Party rules mandate pledged delegates “shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them,” but are not legally required to cast their convention vote for their pledged candidate.

President Joe Biden delivers remarks at the White House on July 1, 2024, following the Supreme Court’s ruling on charges against former President Donald Trump that he sought to subvert the 2020 election. The highest court ruled 6-3 that presidents have some level of immunity from prosecution when operating within their “constitutional authority,” but do not have absolute immunity (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images).

Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision granting the presumption of criminal immunity for official actions taken by a president fundamentally altered U.S. democracy, President Joe Biden said from the White House Monday evening.

Speaking for less than five minutes, Biden said the 6-3 decision contradicted the spirit of the country’s founding — set to be celebrated nationwide this week on the Fourth of July — that no one is above the law.

“This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America,” Biden said. “Each of us is equal before the law. No one — no one — is above the law, not even the president of the United States.”

The immunity decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts for the court’s conservative majority, undermined that principle, Biden said.

Biden added that the decision would almost certainly mean a jury would not decide the criminal case accusing former President Donald Trump of conspiring to illegally overturn his 2020 loss before November’s election, which Biden called a “disservice to the American people.”

Roberts opinion

The ruling tasked a federal trial court with determining which actions then-President Trump took seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election were conducted as “official” acts of the president. Those actions are entitled to “the presumption of immunity,” Roberts wrote.

The ruling protected the power of an office that itself makes up an entire branch of government, Roberts said, and was consistent with the constitutional framers’ view that the president has broad powers and responsibilities.

“Accounting for that reality — and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would — does not place him above the law,” Roberts wrote. “It preserves the basic structure of the Constitution.”

But Biden called the decision “a dangerous precedent” that would give presidents nearly unrestrained power.

“The power of the president will no longer be constrained by the law, even by the Supreme Court of the United States,” he said. “The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.”

Biden invoked the example of George Washington, who he said restrained the power of the presidency, and pledged he would continue to “respect the limits of the presidential powers.”

But, he said, the ruling empowered future presidents, possibly including Trump, to ignore the law.

Jan. 6 attack

Biden said Trump was responsible for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that disrupted the certification of Biden’s defeat of Trump in the 2020 election. Trump’s efforts to undermine the election results, culminating in the Jan. 6 attack, are the subject of the federal indictment the former president challenged by asserting presidential immunity.

“Four years ago, my predecessor sent a violent mob to the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power,” Biden said. “We all saw with our own eyes. We saw what happened that day … I think it’s fair to say it’s one of the darkest days in U.S. history. Now, the man who sent that mob to the U.S. Capitol is facing potential criminal conviction.”

Biden, whose reelection campaign was still reeling Monday from a debate performance against Trump last week described even by Democrats as poor, called on voters to “do what the court should have been willing to do but would not,” and reject Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, at the ballot box.

The president endorsed Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s forceful dissent in the case, quoting her phrase that the majority opinion fueled “fear for our democracy” and urging voters, too, to dissent.

Former U.S President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he leaves court for the day at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 18, 2024 in New York City (Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. presidents enjoy full immunity from criminal charges for their official “core constitutional” acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, sending former President Donald Trump’s case back to the lower courts.

The justices left open the question of how far official acts can reach, possibly reshaping the contours of the American presidency.

Trump escalated his immunity claim to the nation’s highest bench after two lower courts denied his request for protection from federal criminal charges alleging he schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential results.

The decision about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s actions while in office likely closes the door to any chance that Trump’s election subversion case could go to trial before Election Day.

The justices took up the case in February but did not hear oral arguments until April 25.

U.S. Supreme Court ruling on obstruction law helps cases of Jan. 6 defendants

The trial court must now grapple with whether Trump’s alleged conduct to spread false information about the 2020 election results and conspiring to overturn them qualified as official presidential action.

In a 6-3 opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the president is subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts, “like everyone else.”

“But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties,” Roberts wrote. “Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court held that Trump’s conversations with Department of Justice officials regarding the election results were official but left unanswered questions about other conduct named in Department of Justice special counsel Jack’s Smith indictment of Trump.

“​​Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” the opinion reads. “Other allegations— such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the decision makes the president “immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate criminal law.”

“If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop,” Sotomayor wrote. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

Trump claimed in court filings that he could not be prosecuted for actions he took while still in office. His legal team also argues that former presidents cannot be tried in the court of law unless they are first impeached by the U.S. House and convicted by the Senate.

The indictment, which a federal grand jury handed up in August 2023, alleges Trump knowingly spread falsehoods to his supporters, plotting with co-conspirators to overturn results in seven states and eventually working his base into a frenzy that culminated in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the day Congress was to certify electoral votes.

DOJ’s Smith charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (Jane Norman/States Newsroom).

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a precedent Friday that had for decades limited judicial power to strike executive branch regulations, in a decision immediately criticized for potentially undermining decisions by scientists and agency experts.

The 6-3 and 6-2 decisions in two cases brought by fishing operators in New Jersey and Rhode Island challenged a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rule and overturned the principle known as Chevron deference.

That precedent gave federal agencies broad discretion to use their judgment to resolve any ambiguity Congress left in a federal statute.

The court’s six conservatives reasoned that courts “routinely confront statutory ambiguities” that have nothing to do with the authority of regulatory agencies.

“Of course, when faced with a statutory ambiguity in such a case, the ambiguity is not a delegation to anybody, and a court is not somehow relieved of its obligation to independently interpret the statute,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

Under the 40-year-old precedent, courts gave up their interpretive role and deferred to agencies, Roberts wrote.

But they shouldn’t, he added. Judges should apply their own legal reasoning to reach a sound decision.

“Courts instead understand that such statutes, no matter how impenetrable, do —  in fact, must — have a single, best meaning.”

The decision overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that said courts must defer to federal agencies’ expertise when considering legal challenges to a rule. The 1984 ruling significantly raised the bar for overturning an agency rule.

The precedent strengthened the executive branch under presidential administrations of both parties, but experts worry its reversal will strip agencies of the power to enact regulatory safeguards across a broad spectrum of issues including clean air and public health.

In a dissenting opinion, the court’s three liberals — not including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in one of the cases, after she recused herself because she’d heard the case as an appeals court judge before joining the Supreme Court — said the majority erred by misunderstanding the roles of three branches of government.

Congress knows it cannot “write perfectly complete regulatory statutes,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote. Interpretation of those statutes is a given, and Congress usually prefers a “responsible agency” instead of a court.

Agencies are more politically accountable and have greater technical expertise in a given issue than courts, she wrote.

“Put all that together and deference to the agency is the almost obvious choice,” Kagan wrote.

This is a developing story that will be updated.

President Joe Biden, right, and Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump, participate in the CNN Presidential Debate at the CNN Studios on June 27 in Atlanta, Georgia. Biden and Trump faced off in the first presidential debate of the 2024 campaign (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images).

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump pitched to undecided voters Thursday night during the first debate of the presidential campaign — trading insults over their policy differences, immigration and who represents a threat to democracy.

During the debate from CNN’s headquarters in Atlanta, the two men argued over who can do better for Americans during the next four years on a broad swath of issues, ranging from the economy to climate change to foreign policy. Each repeatedly accused the other of lying.

Biden early in the debate spoke softly at several points, coughed and gave several somewhat confusing answers. At one point, Biden appeared to lose his train of thought and ended an answer with the statement that “we finally beat Medicare.”

The two disagreed sharply over access to reproductive rights, including abortion, with Trump arguing Democrats’ position is “radical” and Biden saying that leaving decisions up to the states has been “terrible” for women.

Biden, 81, and Trump, 78, did not shake hands at the beginning, a break from past debates.

Near the end of the debate, Trump said political violence was “totally unacceptable,” though he went on to downplay the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, defending the conduct of his mob of supporters.

Trump initially did not directly answer a question about whether he would accept the results of the election if he lost. When pressed by moderator Dana Bash, Trump conditioned his answer.

Jabs over personal conduct

Even with rules meant to minimize crosstalk, the debate — moderated by Bash, anchor and chief political correspondent, and Jake Tapper, anchor and chief Washington correspondent — saw many moments of acrimony.

While Trump had harsh words about Biden’s border policy and Biden blasted his predecessor for appointing Supreme Court justices who overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, they saved their harshest criticism for the other’s personal conduct.

Referring to reports that, as president, Trump said veterans killed in action in France during World War II were “suckers and losers,” Biden, invoked his son, Beau, who was a National Guard veteran and later died of brain cancer.

“My son was not a loser and was not a sucker,” Biden told his predecessor, scowling. “You’re the sucker. You’re the loser.”

Trump denied he ever made the remark, first reported in The Atlantic and confirmed in other reports.

Biden at several times attacked Trump’s credibility and truthfulness, saying after one answer, “Every single thing he said is a lie.”

“I never heard so much malarkey in my whole life,” he said in response to another of Trump’s answers.

Trump brought up the conviction of Biden’s son, Hunter, on federal gun charges this year. And he said that Joe Biden could face prosecution for his performance on border security.

Trump and his legal team argued in front of the Supreme Court in April that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.

Trump’s conviction

Thursday’s event was the first presidential debate where one participant was a convicted felon.

A New York state jury in May found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels for an affair she testified they had that Trump didn’t want to harm his 2016 election prospects.

Trump has denied the affair and it hasn’t affected his support within the GOP, though his sentencing July 11 could affect his campaign strategy.

Trump rejected his criminal conviction during the debate and reiterated his stance that he didn’t have a sexual relationship with an adult film star.

“I didn’t have sex with a porn star,” Trump said, marking the first time such words, or anything near them, have been uttered during a presidential debate.

“I did nothing wrong, we have a system that was rigged and disgusting,” Trump said. “I did nothing wrong.”

Trump also responded to the question by referring to Hunter Biden.

“When he talks about a convicted felon, his son is a convicted felon,” Trump said.

Jan. 6 disagreement

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to release a ruling within days in another trial involving Trump, this time on whether presidents enjoy complete immunity from criminal prosecution for their actions while in office.

The justices’ decision will determine whether a federal trial against Trump for election interference stemming from his actions on Jan. 6, 2021 can proceed.

During the debate, Trump said that “on January 6 we were respected all over the world,” but that changed after Biden took office.

Trump seemed to imply that the people who stormed the Capitol building were “innocent” and “patriotic,” saying that “you ought to be ashamed of yourself” for those people being in prison.

Biden said that Trump encouraged the “folks” who attacked the U.S. Capitol building and U.S. Capitol Police officers.

“If they’re convicted, he says he wants to commute their sentences,” Biden said, criticizing Trump’s behavior that day. “These people should be in jail. They should be the ones held accountable.”

Biden rejected the idea that the people who attacked the police and disrupted the electoral certification were patriots.

Divide on abortion rights

Reproductive rights — including access to abortion — sharply divided Biden and Trump, who sparred over which political party’s stance is better.

Trump said that he agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this month to leave access to mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, in place. And he said he wouldn’t seek to limit access if elected president in November.

“I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it,” Trump said, adding that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion was a good thing.

“We brought it back to the states and the country is now coming together on this issue,” Trump said. “It’s been a great thing.”

Trump said he supports exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the woman.

Biden rejected Trump’s classification that Democrats are “radical” on abortion policy and said he supports reinstating the protections that existed under Roe v. Wade.

“It’s been a terrible thing,” Biden said of leaving decisions about abortion access up to state lawmakers, comparing it to leaving civil rights decisions up to the states.

Trump said during an interview with Time magazine released in April that his campaign was on the brink of releasing a policy regarding mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. The campaign has yet to release that policy.

Trump suggested that he would be okay with states limiting or barring access to contraception during a May interview with a Pittsburgh TV news station. But he quickly walked back those comments in a social media post.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank, has suggested that another Trump administration could block the mailing of mifepristone by enforcing the Comstock Act.

The group included the proposal along with dozens of others in Project 2025, its 920-page blueprint for a second Trump administration.

The 1873 anti-obscenity law hasn’t been enforced in decades and is referred to as a “zombie law” by reproductive rights organizations, but it is still technically a law.

A future Republican attorney general seeking to enforce the law to block the mailing of mifepristone would likely see the law challenged in court, likely working its way up to the Supreme Court.

Mifepristone is one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortions, which are approved for up to 10 weeks gestation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The two-drug regimen accounts for about 63% of all abortions within the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

First of two debates

The two presidential debates this year are a departure from past years, with both candidates ditching the proposed schedule from the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

Biden and Trump later agreed to two debates, the one held Thursday by CNN and another one on Sept. 10 that will be hosted by ABC News.

CNN opted to hold its debate at its studios in Atlanta, Georgia, without an audience. Thursday night’s debate was also earlier than any other presidential debates, which have traditionally begun in September or October.

The television news network created frustration ahead of the debate with the White House Correspondents Association when it decided to keep the pool, the group of journalists that travel everywhere with the president, out of the room.

Kelly O’Donnell, president of the WHCA, released a statement Thursday afternoon that the organization was “deeply concerned that CNN has rejected our repeated requests to include the White House travel pool inside the studio.”

“The pool is there for the ‘what ifs?’ in a world where the unexpected does happen,” wrote O’Donnell, who is also the senior White House correspondent for NBC News. “A pool reporter is present to provide context and insight by direct observation and not through the lens of the television production.”

CNN’s rules also said that neither Biden nor Trump was allowed to bring props or pre-written notes into the debate area.

Each stood behind “a uniform podium” and was not allowed to interact with campaign staff during the two commercial breaks.

Biden was scheduled to travel with first lady Jill Biden to Raleigh, North Carolina, immediately after the debate wrapped. They’re set to participate in campaign events on Friday morning before traveling to New York later in the day.

The Bidens are then expected to travel to Red Bank, New Jersey, on Saturday for more campaigning before heading back to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland.

Trump will attend a campaign rally Friday afternoon in Chesapeake, Virginia. In a release announcing the event, Trump criticized Biden on inflation, crime and drug addiction, and immigration.

The McCamish Pavilion at Georgia Tech in Atlanta on Tuesday, June 25, 2024. It is the site of the press center for media covering the CNN debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump on Thursday (Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder).

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will get a crucial opportunity to reach undecided voters and set the terms for the 2024 presidential campaign at Thursday night’s debate in Atlanta.

Partisans on either side have already made up their minds about which candidate they’ll support. And with this year’s race serving as a rematch of 2020, many Americans have already formed strong and possibly unchangeable opinions about the candidates.

Yet there is a sizable group of voters who haven’t decided who they’ll support in November, Christopher Stout, a professor of political science at Oregon State University, said in an interview with States Newsroom.

“On one hand, opinions about Joe Biden and Donald Trump are baked in,” Stout said. “On the other hand, there’s a lot of people who aren’t paying any attention to politics and this is their first time thinking about the 2024 election.”

For Biden, a major objective will be to show voters the 81-year-old incumbent can be energetic and forceful, Stout and political strategists said.

Trump, 78, may focus on appealing to voters in the ideological middle and wavering Republicans who want a conservative candidate but are turned off by the former president’s antics.

On policy, each candidate has issues they will capitalize on as strengths. Trump will probably press Biden on immigration and inflation, while Biden undoubtedly will be eager to criticize Trump on reproductive rights.

The debate, sponsored by CNN, will be moderated by the network’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash and begin at 9 p.m. Eastern, with no studio audience. It is set to last for 90 minutes and will air live on CNN with simulcast available for other cable and broadcast networks.

Each candidate’s microphone will be muted while the other is speaking. No props are allowed but each man will be given a pen, pad and bottle of water, CNN said.

Can Trump be boring?

Trump could gain ground with moderate and independent voters by appearing steady.

After winning the presidency in 2016, Trump lost to Biden in 2020 amid a sense that Republican-leaning voters were weary of his unorthodox style and tendency to create scandal.

“If he’s boring and he looks like a typical politician, that’s going to be a big plus for him,” Stout said. “If he looks like a typical politician and he seems more moderate, then there’s the opportunity to bring back a set of voters who were once Republican who have now left the party.”

At the same time, there’s likely not too much down side for Trump if he does go off-script, as voters have come to expect outlandish comments and behavior, Republican strategist Doug Heye said.

“Donald Trump is gonna say something crazy,” Heye said. “That is all factored in and that’s not changing anybody’s mind.”

Heye cited recent remarks Trump has made about shark attacks, electrocution from oversized batteries and taking his shirt off to reveal psychic wounds inflicted by political opponents.

In a move reminiscent of his reality-show past, Trump has teased a possible announcement of his vice presidential pick at the debate.

But even if voters expect some degree of eccentricity from Trump, that will not help him win over the undecided voters who will decide the election, said Rodell Mollineau, a co-founder and partner at the Washington-based strategy firm ROKK Solutions and a veteran of Democratic campaigns.

“If you’re actually trying to reach voters, I’m not sure how Trump ranting and raving, talking about delusional conspiracy theories, helps him win independent voters,” Mollineau said.

Trump will face an additional unique challenge if he tries to look like a traditional presidential candidate: his 34 felony convictions in New York last month and the three other felony prosecutions against him pending, including two related to his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election that led to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

“I’m watching to see how he talks about or doesn’t talk about his many court dalliances and the conviction and whatever else he has hanging over his head,” Mollineau said.

Can Biden be forceful?

Biden faces different questions he must answer.

Voters have doubts about the incumbent’s ability, due in part to his age, inclination for misspeaking and a concerted effort by Republicans and GOP-aligned media to portray Biden as past his prime.

“I think Biden in part is going to be trying to overcome the image that Trump and Republicans in general have been very successful in creating,” University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock said.  “They’ve been working on this now for at least five years, and that is the image of Biden being too old, being not up to it physically or mentally to continue to serve as president for another four years.”

Biden countered that narrative — at least temporarily — with an exuberant performance at the State of the Union address this year, several observers said.

Matching that energy will help him have a positive debate, they said.

But Heye noted that despite rave reviews from Democrats, the president’s State of the Union performance did not improve his standing in polls.

“The reaction from Democrats was: game changer,” Heye said. “And if we look at the polling, the game didn’t change at all.”

Biden would also benefit by reminding voters of his policy record, and contrasting it with Trump’s, Stout and Mollineau said.

“It will advantage him if he can talk about policy,” Stout said. “People don’t know the things he has done and so there’s hope maybe to inform people and sway the electorate.”

Biden should target left-leaning voters by reminding them of his achievements on climate and the environment and his administration’s efforts to create jobs, Stout said.

Mollineau added that Biden must remind voters of Trump’s tumultuous time in office and Biden’s achievements thus far, while balancing that message with an acknowledgment that many Americans are unsatisfied.

An early debate

The debate, which will be broadcast from CNN’s Georgia headquarters, comes much earlier in the election cycle than usual, even before the party conventions that typically symbolize the start of the general election.

The candidates agreed to the unusual schedule after rejecting a proposal from the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan organization that has organized the events for decades, typically with three meetings between presidential candidates and one between would-be vice presidents.

All debates are usually in the fall.

This year’s June schedule could give the candidates a chance to frame the race moving forward, as many voters will be tuning in to the contest for the first time.

But the nearly 19 weeks remaining until Election Day could also mean a candidate with a weak performance has time to recover, or that a strong performance could diminish.

“I do not believe anyone is going to either win or lose the election this week,” Mollineau said.

Bullock, the Georgia professor, differed.

Because of the unpopularity of both candidates, and the sense that voters will be choosing the one they view as “the least of two evils,” either could provide a voter’s “final straw,” he said.

“They may hear something coming out of the mouths of one of these and say, ‘Yeah, that’s it,’” Bullock said. “‘That’s the final straw. I can’t support that one. It helps me make up my mind to go with the other person.’”

Ross Williams contributed to this report.

(Photo Illustration by Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

TikTok and its parent company argued Thursday in a federal court in the District of Columbia that the recently enacted law forcing a nationwide ban or sale of the popular platform violates the First Amendment.

TikTok Inc., which operates the video-sharing service in the United States, and its parent company, ByteDance Ltd., which was founded by a Chinese national, filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit calling the law President Joe Biden signed in April an unprecedented restriction on the constitutional right to free speech.

“Never before has Congress expressly singled out and shut down a specific speech forum,” the brief reads. “Never before has Congress silenced so much speech in a single act. “

Upholding such an “extraordinary speech restriction” would require the court to undertake “exacting scrutiny” of Congress’ action, but Congress provided only a hypothetical national security argument to advance the bill, the companies said.

“Congress gave this Court almost nothing to review,” the brief continues. “Congress enacted no findings, so there is no way to know why majorities of the House and Senate decided to ban TikTok.”

Many individual lawmakers who supported the law raised national security concerns, saying ByteDance’s relationship with the Chinese government meant the country’s Communist Party leaders could demand access to TikTok users’ private data.

They also said the platform, which the company says has 170 million users in the U.S., could be used to spread propaganda.

But under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, labeling speech as foreign propaganda does not allow the government to overlook First Amendment protections, TikTok said in its brief.

Speculation about how the app “might” or “could” be used, rather than any concrete examples of misconduct, do not clear the high bar required to restrict speech, the companies added.

“A claim of national security does not override the Constitution,” the companies wrote Thursday.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department, which is defending the law, highlighted the intelligence community’s national security concerns with TikTok and said the law was consistent with the First Amendment.

“This legislation addresses critical national security concerns in a manner that is consistent with the First Amendment and other constitutional limitations,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement to States Newsroom. “We look forward to defending the legislation in court.

“Alongside others in our intelligence community and in Congress, the Justice Department has consistently warned about the threat of autocratic nations that can weaponize technology – such as the apps and software that run on our phones – to use against us. This threat is compounded when those autocratic nations require companies under their control to turn over sensitive data to the government in secret.”

Response to lawmakers

The brief said Congress had not included any official findings of harm from TikTok, but several individual members raised specific concerns about the kind of speech found on the platform.

The companies said Thursday those specific complaints bolstered the argument that TikTok is being denied free speech protections.

The brief cited several lawmaker statements:

• U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican, U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who is ranking member on the House Select Committee on China, and former Rep. Mike Gallagher, a Wisconsin Republican who chaired the panel, said the platform’s algorithm fed an overwhelming share of pro-Palestinian content over videos that favor Israel.

• Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, said the platform “exposes children to harmful content.”

• Sen. John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said the law would “make TikTok safer for our children and national security.”

• Nebraska Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts noted the popularity of the hashtag #StandwithKashmir, which protests a policy of India, a geopolitical rival of China.

“Legislators’ perception of the content reflected on TikTok was misinformed,” the companies said. “But well-founded or not, governmental policing of content differences is antithetical to the First Amendment.”

Oral arguments in September

Both chambers of Congress passed the law with bipartisan votes as part of a package that included aid to Israel and Ukraine. Biden signed the measure April 24.

TikTok pledged to sue and filed its legal challenge last month.

Tuesday’s brief expands on the company’s arguments. The government’s response is due July 26 and oral arguments are scheduled for Sept. 16.

Divestment unworkable, TikTok says

TikTok and ByteDance said Thursday the provision in the bill to avoid a ban by divesting the service to a company without ties to China is unworkable, especially within the nine-month timeline required by the law.

Such a move would be technically complex, requiring years of engineering work, the companies said. It would also isolate the U.S. user base from the rest of the world, limiting revenue from advertisements.

And even if it were feasible from a technical or business standpoint, selling the platform would likely be rejected by the Chinese government, which has the authority to block exportation of technology developed in the country, the companies said.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts announces the results of the vote on the second article of impeachment during impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol on February 5, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Senate Television via Getty Images)

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told leading Democrats on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday he will not meet with them to discuss the court’s code of ethics, following revelations of displays of politically oriented flags at the homes of Justice Samuel Alito.

Individual justices will continue to decide their own recusals, Roberts wrote to Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, a Democrat of Illinois, and Subcommittee on the Federal Courts Chair Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, in a letter obtained by States Newsroom.

Durbin and Whitehouse had asked Roberts a week earlier to force Alito to recuse himself from upcoming decisions related to the 2020 election and to meet to discuss proposals to strengthen Supreme Court ethics rules.

“I must respectfully decline your request for a meeting,” Roberts wrote in the two-paragraph letter dated Thursday. “Separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence counsel against such appearances.”

Justices rarely meet with legislators, particularly those who have expressed an interest in matters before the court, Roberts wrote.

Meeting with members of only one party would be especially problematic, he said.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Durbin rejected Roberts’ reasoning, saying Durbin only sought to address the lack of public confidence in the court.

“The Chief Justice is wrong to say that simply meeting with members of Congress to discuss the Supreme Court’s ethics crisis threatens the separation of powers or judicial independence,” the spokesperson wrote.

“Due to the Chief Justice’s intransigence, Chair Durbin will continue his efforts to pass legislation establishing an enforceable code of conduct for all nine Supreme Court justices — regardless of which President appointed them.”

‘Immediately take appropriate steps’

Durbin and Whitehouse wrote to Roberts on May 23, asking him “to immediately take appropriate steps to ensure that Justice Alito will recuse himself in any cases related to the 2020 presidential election and January 6th attack on the Capitol.”

Flags at two Alito homes appeared to promote former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims that his loss in the 2020 election was the result of a rigged election. That claim spurred the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.

A May 22 New York Times report documented that a flag at Alito’s Virginia home flew upside down in the weeks following the 2020 election. Alito told the Times that his wife displayed that flag in reaction to a neighborhood dispute.

A New Jersey vacation home belonging to the Alitos was photographed in the summer of 2023 flying an “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which bears that slogan above a simple pine tree design. The second flag was also first reported in the New York Times.

Both flags were carried by rioters during the Capitol attack, raising questions for Durbin and Whitehouse about Alito’s ability to be objective in cases concerning former President Donald Trump’s role in the attack.

The court heard oral arguments last month in a case about whether presidential immunity shielded Trump from prosecution on federal charges he sought to overturn the legitimate election results.

The Democratic senators specified that the case was one from which Alito should recuse himself.

Roberts’ letter said Alito had written to the committee himself on that issue. That letter was not immediately available Thursday.

Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, speaks Friday during a press conference at Trump Tower in New York City. Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial. (David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump, now a convicted felon, vowed to launch an appeal based “on many things” he considered unfair during his New York trial, he said Friday in the lobby of Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan.

Meanwhile Friday, legal and political analysts predicted he will spend little if any time in jail depending on the outcome of that appeal, fundraising among supportive Republicans appeared to surge and eight GOP members of the U.S. Senate pledged they will not support any Democratic priorities or nominations.

The reactions came as Americans continued to digest the news that on Thursday, a jury in Lower Manhattan found the Republican Party’s presumed 2024 presidential nominee guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a felony in New York.

The roughly seven-week proceeding marked the first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president.

“We’re going to be appealing this scam,” Trump said at his late-morning press conference, referring to New York Justice Juan Merchan as a “tyrant.”

Over about 30 minutes of often misleading or false comments delivered in his familiar stream-of-consciousness style that jumped from topic to topic, Trump complained about aspects of the trial, said the case shouldn’t have been prosecuted at all and made campaign-style appeals on immigration and crime.

Trump has centered his public relations defense on the idea that the prosecution was politically motivated, often blaming the Biden administration, and he repeated the theme throughout his Friday remarks.

“If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone,” he said.

President Joe Biden said Friday that Trump “was given every opportunity to defend himself.”

“It was a state case, not a federal case. It was heard by a jury of 12 citizens, 12 Americans, 12 people like you, like millions of Americans who’ve served on juries. This jury was chosen the same way every jury in America is chosen. It was a process that Donald Trump’s attorney was part of,” Biden said from the White House before delivering remarks on the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Biden said Trump now has the opportunity “as he should” to appeal, just like anyone else who is tried in the U.S.

“That’s how the American system of justice works,” Biden said. “It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict.”

Jail time?

Trump told the crowd Friday morning he could spend “187 years” in jail for being found guilty of falsifying business records. It was not clear how he arrived at that number.

Most observers of his trial and the New York justice system disagree with that estimate.

Merchan set Trump’s sentencing for July 11 at 10 a.m. Eastern, just four days before the Republican National Convention kicks off in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the GOP will officially nominate Trump for president in November’s election.

Trump is convicted of class E felonies, the lowest level felony in New York state, and each carries the possibility of probation to up to four years in prison.

Any incarceration sentence up to a year would be served in the city’s Rikers Island jail or another local facility. Incarceration beyond that time frame would be served at a state facility.

“If that jail sentence happens, it probably will be less than a year,” said Norm Eisen, former White House special counsel in the Obama administration, who has been commenting on the indictment and trial for months.

Eisen spoke during a virtual press conference hosted by the Defend Democracy Project.

New York state law experts say Merchan may not be inclined to imprison a former, and possibly future, U.S. president. And, if he sentences Trump to any length of incarceration, it will likely be stayed — a temporary stop to the action —pending appeal.

Trump could remain free on bail conditions set by the court, or no bail conditions, subject to a decision by the appeals court and potentially any other review if an appeals judge sends the case to the state’s highest court.

“When there is a stay pending appeal, generally, the process is expedited more quickly than it would be if the defendant was at liberty and there was no stay. But even so, this is going to go beyond the election,” said retired New York Supreme Court Judge Michael Obus at the press conference with Eisen.

Appeal strategy?

While Trump said Friday morning he plans to appeal the verdict based on “many things,” legal observers speculate his team’s approach may come down to a few options.

In New York, falsifying a business record is illegal in the first degree when the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”

While the jurors had to unanimously agree on an intent to commit another crime, they did not have to agree unanimously on what that underlying crime was, according to Merchan’s instructions to the jury prior to deliberations.

Merchan said jurors could consider three options for the other crime: violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act; falsification of other business records; or, violation of tax laws.

Obus said a “non-frivolous argument” that Trump’s team might use is that one of those underlying crimes was a federal, not a state crime.

“That’s the kind of argument that we might see on appeal — the argument being that New York courts don’t have the authority to prosecute the case with that being the object crime because it’s a federal crime,” Obus said. “I don’t think that’ll be successful.”

In addition to the challenge regarding federal election law, Shane T. Stansbury of Duke Law told States Newsroom in an interview Friday that he expects to see Trump’s legal team challenge evidentiary issues.

“For example, I would expect that the defense would make a claim that the salacious testimony by Stormy Daniels about the details of her sexual encounter with Donald Trump was unfairly prejudicial,” Stansbury said.

Also, Trump’s lawyers might challenge the judge’s decision to strike from defense attorney Todd Blanche’s closing statement a plea he made to the jury, asking them to not send Trump “to prison.”

The charge against Trump could, or could not, result in prison time.

“You can imagine the defense saying that that correction may have prejudiced the jury. Now, I should say that those kinds of evidentiary issues are a much steeper climb for the defense,” Stansbury said.

‘A legal expense’

Trump remains under a gag order imposed by Merchan in March to keep the former president from further attacking court staff and potential witnesses online.

Trump violated the order 10 times, leading Merchan to fine him $9,000 on April 30, and again $1,000 on May 6.

During his comments Friday morning, Trump complained of having to pay “thousands of dollars” because of his “nasty gag order.”

Still, Trump spent several minutes during his remarks talking about one of the prosecution’s star witnesses, his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

According to testimony and document evidence presented during trial, Cohen wired $130,000 of his own money to porn star Stormy Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump. Trump then reimbursed Cohen the following year under the guise of “legal expenses.”

Prosecutors never should have brought the case accusing him of falsifying business records, Trump said.

The payments to Cohen were for Cohen to create a nondisclosure agreement with Daniels and secure her signature, which is legal, Trump said Friday. That was a legal service, and the payments were properly recorded that way, he said.

“I paid a lawyer a legal expense,” he said.

“The whole thing is legal expense was marked down as legal expense,” he said. “Think of it: This is the crime that I committed that I’m supposed to go to jail for 187 years for.”

Trump, who wouldn’t say Cohen’s name Friday because of the gag order, said Cohen was not a “fixer” as he is often described, but a lawyer in good standing.

“By the way, this was a highly qualified lawyer,” Trump said. “Now I’m not allowed to use his name because of the gag order. But, you know, he’s a sleazebag. Everybody knows that. Took me a while to find out. But he was effective. He did work. But he wasn’t a fixer. He was a lawyer.”

Trump said he wanted to testify at his trial, but was advised not to by his lawyers.

Attacks on Biden 

Trump pivoted nearly immediately after his remarks began to campaign-style attacks on Biden’s administration and the anti-immigration positions that comprise Trump’s most consistent policy message since his political career began in 2015.

He focused on immigrants from predominantly non-white countries and made false claims that many had been institutionalized in prison and mental hospitals.

“Millions and millions of people are flowing in from all parts of the world, not just South America, from Africa, from Asia and from the Middle East, and they’re coming in from jails and prisons, and they’re coming in from mental institutions and insane asylums,” he said. “And we have a president and a group of fascists that don’t want to do anything about it.”

He also called crime “rampant in New York.” He added that Biden wanted to quadruple taxes and “make it impossible for you to get a car,” neither of which are based on Biden’s actual policy positions.

In a statement, Biden campaign spokesperson Michael Tyler called Trump’s remarks “unhinged.”

“America just witnessed a confused, desperate, and defeated Donald Trump ramble about his own personal grievances and lie about the American justice system, leaving anyone watching with one obvious conclusion: This man cannot be president of the United States,” Tyler wrote. “Unhinged by his 2020 election loss and spiraling from his criminal convictions, Trump is consumed by his own thirst for revenge and retribution.”

GOP convention in less than two months

The Republican National Convention begins July 15. The Republican National Committee, which called Thursday’s verdict “rigged,” did not immediately respond to questions Friday about whether it will adjust plans in the event Trump is placed under any restrictions during his July 11 sentencing.

Trump encouraged supporters to continue backing his campaign as a response to the verdict, calling Nov. 5 – Election Day – “the most important day in the history of our country.”

Throughout his remarks Friday, he touted an online poll conducted by J.L. Partners and published in the conservative British tabloid The Daily Mail on Friday that showed Trump’s approval rating gained points after the verdict.

There were signs that showed Republican support, at least, consolidated even more behind Trump following the verdict.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, the campaign organization for U.S. Senate Republicans, said it had its highest fundraising day of the cycle Thursday, bringing in $360,000 in donations that the group directly attributed to the verdict in Manhattan.

Other official GOP channels, including the Republican National Committee social media accounts, echoed Trump’s message that the former president was the victim of a political prosecution and predicted the conviction would push voters toward Trump.

Elected Republicans throughout the country continued Friday to almost universally reject the verdict and defend Trump.

A group of eight U.S. Senate Republicans – Mike Lee of Utah, J.D. Vance of Ohio, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Rick Scott and Marco Rubio of Florida and Roger Marshall of Kansas – signed a letter Friday pledging to increase their resistance to administration priorities in response to the verdict.

“Those who turned our judicial system into a political cudgel must be held accountable,” Lee said in a post to X. “We are no longer cooperating with any Democrat legislative priorities or nominations, and we invite all concerned Senators to join our stand.”

The Biden administration and congressional Democrats played no role in the trial, which was in New York state court.

‘No one is above the law’

The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, said that Thursday’s verdict shows that “no one is above the law.”

Nadler was joined by Eisen, along with accountability advocates and historians, on a Friday webinar for the press hosted by watchdog group Public Citizen. Eisen participated in multiple press appearances Friday.

Nadler said that Republicans are attempting to sow distrust in the verdict, as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan of Ohio, has already sent a letter to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg requesting that he testify in a hearing before the panel’s Weaponization of the Federal Government Subcommittee on June 13.

Nadler said he disagreed with Jordan’s decision to request testimony from the DA who prosecuted Trump.

“It’s a continuing attempt to bully the prosecutors into abandoning prosecutions and to tell the country the false story of persecution of the president (Trump) and to help undermine confidence in the criminal justice system,” Nadler said.

Nadler said the New York trial was important because it’s likely going to be the only trial that finishes before the November elections. Trump faces two federal criminal cases, and another criminal case in Georgia.

“It is very important for the American people to know, before an election, that they’re dealing with a convicted felon,” Nadler said.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a history professor at New York University who specializes in authoritarianism, propaganda and democracy protection, said during the virtual press conference that the trial was a demonstration of American democracy being upheld.

“The fact this trial took place at all and was able to unfold in the professional way it did is a testament to the worth and functioning of our democracy,” she said.

U.S. Rep. Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (photo submitted).

The U.S. House voted 387-26 Wednesday to clear a bill to reauthorize $105 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration for the next five years — and to finalize a hotly debated deal adding flights at busy Washington Reagan National Airport.

Advocates for the bill, which won votes from every ideological corner of the often-divided House, touted its aviation safety and consumer provisions. The House vote sends the measure to President Joe Biden’s desk ahead of a Friday deadline. The Senate approved the legislation last week.

The only member to speak against the bill during floor debate Tuesday was Virginia’s Don Beyer, a Democrat who, like the entire U.S. Senate delegation from Maryland and Virginia, opposed a provision to add five incoming and five outgoing flights at Washington Reagan National Airport across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C.

The bill:

•  Increases funding for the Airport Improvement Program that funds infrastructure improvements at airports of all sizes across the country;
• Requires the agency to hire more air traffic controllers;
• Updates the aircraft safety certification process; and
• Requires airlines to automatically refund passengers on flights delayed three hours or longer, among many other provisions in its more than 1,000 pages.

Missouri congressman ‘could not be more proud’

The bill’s passage was something of a career capstone for House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican and one of the few pilots in Congress.

“I’ve served in this House for more than 23 years and I’ve been looking forward to passing an FAA bill as chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for a long time,” he said on the floor Tuesday. “This is the kind of bill that a chairman only gets to do once in their career and I could not be more proud of the final product that we put together.”

Graves is in his third term as the top Republican on the committee and, under House GOP rules, cannot seek another, though he can ask party leaders to waive that rule.

He highlighted protections in the bill for general aviation, a term that can apply to all non-commercial and non-military flights.

Rep. Rick Larsen, the ranking Democrat on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, applauded several provisions in the bill, including the Airport Improvement Program funding, which he said could be used for alternative-fuel infrastructure and to mitigate noise and other harmful effects of airports in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

The bill also creates a program to help airports replace firefighting foam made with PFAS, or forever chemicals, funds workforce development grants and bans airlines from charging families to sit together, the Washington Democrat said.

The bill “cements a safer, cleaner, greener, more innovative and accessible future for U.S. aviation,” Larsen said.

DCA flights

Six no votes in the House came from members from Virginia who opposed a provision adding flights to Washington National, also called DCA.

The state’s congressional delegation, along with Maryland’s U.S. senators, has said the airport already strains to safely handle the traffic it currently operates. Adding flights will only worsen the safety environment, they said.

“I’m deeply concerned about the provisions that would aggravate dangerous conditions at National Airport,” Beyer said Tuesday. “I cannot support a bill that hurts my constituents, disrespects all the elected leaders from Virginia, Maryland and D.C., and directly harms our airport and the passengers who use it.”

Members from outside the capital region argued the additional flights would be a positive. Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat, said they would add “connectivity and economic expansion.”

Rep. Burgess Owens, a Utah Republican, also applauded the extra flights.

“This legislation (was) designed not for one airport and one airline, but for all of us,” he said. “It gives more convenience, more opportunities to families traveling into Washington, D.C.”

The five new routes have not been selected but some members, including Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican who is the ranking member on the Senate committee that oversees aviation, have speculated that San Antonio could be one beneficiary.

Research from Min-Seok Pang, a professor at Temple University’s Fox School of Business in Philadelphia, Russell J. Funk, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management, and Daniel Hirschman, a sociology professor at Cornell University, found that the U.S. House district represented by the chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee sees more commercial aviation service.

The data show transportation committee chairs saw flights to their districts increase by more than 5% on average from 1990 to 2019. Airlines also increased direct service to Washington from a chair’s district, the analysis, which was published last year in the academic journal Organization Science, showed. The numbers generally reverted to normal after the chair’s term.

U.S. Rep. Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, is chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (photo submitted).

Conservative members of Congress at a hearing on Wednesday raised questions about using federal dollars to pay for rebuilding a state tollway, as the head of the Federal Highway Administration reiterated that the Biden administration is seeking congressional approval to reimburse 100% of the costs of rebuilding the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore.

Congress has about six months left to adjust the federal share of costs to reconstruct the bridge before an automatic rate of 90% reimbursement kicks in, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, said at a hearing on the federal response to the March 26 collapse.

Early that morning, the container ship Dali lost power and struck the bridge, which collapsed into the Patapsco River and blocked access to the busy Port of Baltimore. Six people died.

Under the FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program, the federal government covers the first nine months of costs from a disaster.

Graves did not indicate whether he thought Congress should increase the federal cost-share. But Federal Highway Administrator Shailen Bhatt repeated President Joe Biden’s pledge that the federal government would cover all costs.

“The administration is asking Congress to join in demonstrating a commitment to aid in recovery efforts by authorizing a 100% federal cost-share for rebuilding the bridge, consistent with past catastrophic bridge collapses,” Bhatt told the panel.

The federal government reimbursed all the costs to rebuild the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis after it collapsed in 2007, Bhatt said.

The estimated cost of a rebuild for the Baltimore bridge is $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion.

The FHWA has asked permitting agencies to speed up approvals for a new bridge, noting that environmental and other reviews should consider that a bridge with a similar footprint was previously in the same location, Bhatt said.

Conservatives on the panel drew attention to the fact that the bridge, which was a toll facility on Maryland’s highway system, had never received federal funding. Revenue from the tolls go to the state, Pennsylvania Republican Scott Perry, noted.

Perry, a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, said the comparison to the Minneapolis bridge collapse was not apt because it had not been a toll bridge.

He asked if the federal government could recoup toll money collected on the bridge when it reopens.

“I hope you would consider a plan to reimburse the taxpayer under horrific debt right now, who can’t afford their groceries, their gas bills, their day care bills, for the cost of this bridge, for which one state has been receiving all the money for its entire existence, and apparently is going to receive all the money from the tolls for the rest of its existence,” Perry said.

Interstate system

Bhatt and some Democrats on the panel said that an intact interstate system benefits the entire country.

Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson asked Bhatt to explain the bridge’s connection to interstate commerce, noting that there may be “people in the country who are not inside the state of Maryland who resent having to pay for this bridge reconstruction.”

“What is so critically important for a transportation system is that you can drive from New York to Los Angeles across a system that is completely uniform,” Bhatt responded.

The highway system is connected to ports, which are also economic drivers, Bhatt said.

“This is not just an issue for Maryland,” he said. “It’s an issue for the Northeast Corridor and for our national economy.”

Legal action

Florida Republican Brian Mast asked Bhatt if the government was seeking reimbursement from any insurance policies or the Grace Ocean Private Ltd., which owned the ship, or shipping company Maersk, which chartered it.

Bhatt responded that the U.S. Justice Department was leading efforts to seek to recover those types of funds.

California Democrat John Garamendi said he supported 100% of costs being reimbursed by the federal government, but that the committee should “carefully structure” legislation so that any funds from insurance payments or legal judgments against the shipping company would flow back to the federal government.

Rebuilding issues

Reconstruction plans will be written and updated as the project progresses in the coming years, Bhatt said. The most recent timeline estimates construction could be finished in 2028 and traffic could resume that year or in 2029.

The bridge should be rebuilt to comply with current standards, Bhatt told ranking Democrat Rick Larsen of Washington. The original bridge, constructed during the 1970s, was a truss design, which has been replaced in recent years by cable-stayed bridges.

But federal law does not allow for “betterments” that did not exist on the original bridge to be added to the rebuild, Bhatt added.

A Robust Cannabis employee showcases the company's Black Hole Sun strain at their warehouse in Cuba, Mo. (Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent).

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has proposed loosening the illegal status of marijuana at the federal level – but that doesn’t mean the federal government now condones recreational or medicinal use in the many states that have legalized the drug.

Moving marijuana from the government’s list of the most dangerous and least useful substances to a less serious category was a clear signal that the federal government, at least under President Joe Biden’s administration, wants to ease restrictions on a drug that’s been legal in an increasing number of states for more than a decade.

For years, the federal government has not pursued enforcement of state-legal marijuana operations, and the recent move appears to solidify that approach.

But it didn’t solve the many thorny issues that have resulted from a split between what is legal in dozens of states and what the federal government allows.

It’s unclear exactly what the rescheduling will mean. The Justice Department has not made public the text of Garland’s proposal — a DOJ spokesman declined States Newsroom’s request this week for a copy and state regulators say it has not been shared with them.

Even if the proposal were public, it would be expected to go through changes over months of rulemaking.

Here are some questions covering what is known at this early stage about what rescheduling would and would not do.

Q: Is weed legal now?

A: No.

Even in states that have legalized recreational use, the federal government would likely still consider the state system as illegal under federal law.

Other Schedule III drugs, including Tylenol with codeine and anabolic steroids, are tightly regulated and available only by prescription at pharmacies.

State-legal medicinal marijuana dispensaries do not fit that description and recreational-use dispensaries are even further from what the Food and Drug Administration requires of Schedule III drugs.

“This does not make marijuana state operations legal,” Shawn Hauser, a partner at Denver-based marijuana law firm Vicente LLP, said on a May 3 webinar. “They are not selling FDA-approved drugs and they are not licensed or meet the control requirements for Schedule III. So cannabis and state-legal dispensaries will remain in violation of federal law.”

Q: What is the difference between Schedule I and Schedule III?

A: Among the most significant is the recognition that the drug may have some medicinal value.

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the Drug Enforcement Administration has five levels of drug classifications.

Schedule I is the most restricted level, comprising the drugs most ripe for abuse that have no medicinal value. Other drugs on the list include heroin and LSD.

Because the definition of Schedule I substances includes no medicinal use, it is illegal to even study substances on the list.

Schedule III is the strictest level that acknowledges some medicinal value, making some hopeful that research on the drug could be improved.

“Moving cannabis to Schedule III would be a big step for recognition of the medical uses of cannabis, what voters here recognized by a wide margin in 1998,” the Washington state Liquor and Cannabis Board said in a May 1 statement. “And it would say very clearly that the federal government no longer considers cannabis among the most dangerous drugs.”

Q: How are states preparing?

A: Until they have more details, state regulators cannot do much, Amanda Borup, the senior policy analyst for the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, said in an interview.

“We really have to wait and see what they release,” she said, referring to the DEA’s rulemaking.

Other states are considering what the impacts might be.

The statement from Washington’s Liquor and Cannabis Board said rescheduling would “hopefully” ease restrictions on cannabis research, while it is “possible” the move would allow state-legal businesses to take advantage of tax deductions available to other industries.

Q: Why does research matter?

A: Marijuana advocates have had trouble providing evidence of any marijuana benefits because research has been restricted, which in turn made it more difficult to show that the restrictions should be lifted.

It could also help establish industry guidelines for ancillary issues. For example, the restrictions on research contribute to a lack of data on what pesticides are safe for use in marijuana cultivation.

Q: How does this affect policy on taxes, banking and criminal justice?

A: On its own, rescheduling likely won’t address several complaints marijuana industry members and advocates have about federal prohibition.

Some are hopeful, though, that the signal from the Biden administration will spur momentum toward other changes.

Most businesses can deduct their costs from their income and pay taxes on their net income. Marijuana businesses cannot take that deduction, known as 280E, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, an advocacy group.

Schedule I status also makes access to the U.S. banking system difficult.

Others complain that making marijuana legal in some states has not been fair to the communities of color that saw the most active enforcement.

Rescheduling would not fix those issues on its own, but advocates are hopeful it is a sign of momentum toward full legalization.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ron Wyden of Oregon reintroduced a bill last week to de-schdule the drug altogether. The measure includes expanding the 280E tax break and several provisions meant to address social justice.

Q: Could Trump reverse this if he wins in November?

A: Probably, though there’s no indication that’s on his agenda.

It’s unclear what the status of the rescheduling will be when the next Inauguration Day arrives on Jan. 20.

If former President Donald Trump wins back the presidency and the rescheduling is still pending, he could direct the DEA and DOJ to scrap the change.

Trump has not commented on the issue.

(Carol Yepes/Getty Images).

Leading U.S. Senate Democrats reintroduced a bill Wednesday to remove marijuana from the list of federal controlled substances, following the Biden administration’s move a day earlier to significantly ease regulations on the drug.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden of Oregon and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, on Wednesday at a press conference applauded the Justice Department’s announcement it would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

But they said it didn’t solve problems, including race-based discrimination, created by federal prohibition.

Instead, they promoted a bill that would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act entirely, while adding new federal regulations and oversight.

The bill “will help our country close the book once and for all on the awful, harmful and failed war on drugs, which all too often has been nothing more than a war on Americans of color,” Schumer said. “In short, our bill’s about individual freedom and basic fairness.”

Most Americans believe cannabis should be legalized, Schumer said.

The move announced Tuesday by the Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration will ease some of the harshest restrictions on marijuana use under Schedule I, which lists the most dangerous and easily abused drugs without any medicinal value.

Schedule III drugs, which include Tylenol with codeine and anabolic steroids, are allowed to be studied and dispensed under certain guidelines.

DOJ move not enough, Dems say

The Tuesday announcement from the Justice Department didn’t go far enough, the trio said at a Wednesday press conference, and should be seen as a potential launching pad for further reforms.

“We want to disabuse people of the notion that because the White House moved yesterday, things are at a standstill here in the United States Congress,” Wyden said. “I look at this as a chance to get new momentum for our bill, for action on Capitol Hill.”

Fifteen other Senate Democrats have cosponsored the bill.

Communities of color and small businesses

The senators said that federal prohibition, even as many states have legalized medicinal or recreational use, has disproportionately harmed communities of color.

“I think it’s a great step that the Biden administration is moving in the direction of not making this a Schedule I drug — the absurdity of that is outrageous,” Booker said. “But honestly, the bill that we are reintroducing today is the solution to this long, agonizing, hypocritical, frankly unequally enforced set of bad laws.”

Federal prohibition has also blocked tax breaks for marijuana-related businesses, including small independent enterprises that Wyden, who chairs the tax-writing Finance Committee, said he is eager to help.

Wyden said he was excited about a provision in the bill to allow state-legal marijuana business access to a common tax break that allows small businesses to deduct business expenses.

With marijuana classified as a Schedule I substance, the federal tax break has not been allowed even for businesses that operate with a state license. Wyden said that small independent businesses “really get clobbered” under the current system. He indicated that his committee would look at more ways to reduce the tax burden for “small mom-and-pop” businesses.

The senators did not answer a question about if the legalization bill should be considered in tandem with a separate bill to allow state-legal marijuana businesses greater access to the banking system. Many banks refuse to do business with marijuana businesses out of fear they will be sanctioned as an accessory to drug trafficking.

New regulatory framework

The bill would automatically expunge federal marijuana-related convictions, direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development to create a program to help people who lost access to housing benefits because of marijuana convictions and establish a Cannabis Justice Office within the U.S. Justice Department.

It would direct funding to an Opportunity Trust Fund to help people and individuals “most harmed by the failed War on Drugs,” according to a summary from Schumer’s office. It would disallow possession of cannabis to be used against any noncitizen in an immigration proceeding and prevent withholding of other federal benefits from people who use the drug.

While the bill would remove cannabis from regulations under the Controlled Substances Act, it would add new federal oversight, making the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau the federal agency with jurisdiction over the drug.

The bill would establish a federal Center for Cannabis Products to regulate production, sales, distribution and other elements of the cannabis industry, instruct the Food and Drug Administration to establish labeling standards and create programs to prevent youth marijuana use.

It would also retain a federal prohibition on marijuana trafficking conducted outside of state-legal markets, ask the Transportation Department to develop standards on cannabis-impaired driving and have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration collect data and create educational materials on cannabis-impaired driving.

(Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent)

The Biden administration plans to remove marijuana from a list of the most dangerous and highly regulated drugs, the Department of Justice said Tuesday night.

The Drug Enforcement Administration will propose moving the drug from a Schedule I substance, which also includes heroin and methamphetamine, to Schedule III, which is the category for regulated-but-legal drugs including testosterone and Tylenol with codeine.

“Today, the Attorney General circulated a proposal to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III,” DOJ spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement to States Newsroom. “Once published by the Federal Register, it will initiate a formal rulemaking process as prescribed by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act.”

Cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act since 1971, even as many states have moved to legalize recreational use for more than a decade and medicinal use for even longer.

State-legal marijuana businesses make up a multibillion-dollar industry, but the illegal status of the drug under federal law creates barriers unseen by other industries, including a lack of access to banking and the inability to deduct business expenses from taxes.

Social justice advocates have also noted that prosecutions for marijuana-related crimes have hurt communities of color. Many of those convicted for offenses related to marijuana have not benefited from the recent decriminalization in many states.

Moving cannabis to Schedule III would allow a more permissive approach to the drug, including permitting greater study of medicinal uses and allowing related businesses to use a common tax deduction.

Schumer praises development

Congressional leaders on the issue and other advocates of changing marijuana’s status welcomed the news Tuesday afternoon, even as they called for further action.

“It is great news that DEA is finally recognizing that restrictive and Draconian cannabis laws need to change to catch up to what science and the majority of Americans have said loud and clear,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.

The New York Democrat added that other legislation, including bills to provide cannabis businesses with greater access to banking and to completely delist the drug, is still needed.

“Congress must do everything we can to end the federal prohibition on cannabis and address longstanding harms caused by the war on drugs,” he said.

Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat from Colorado who was the state’s governor when it and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational use in 2012, said the news was welcome but did not go far enough.

“Rescheduling marijuana is a step in the right direction. But – just a step,” he posted to X. “Marijuana should be DEscheduled altogether.”

The state’s current Gov. Jared Polis, also a Democrat, cheered the move in a written statement.

“I am thrilled by the Biden Administration’s decision to begin the process of finally rescheduling cannabis, following the lead of Colorado and 37 other states that have already legalized it for medical or adult use, correcting decades of outdated federal policy,” Polis said.

“This action is good for Colorado businesses and our economy, it will improve public safety, and will support a more just and equitable system for all.”

The U.S. Cannabis Council, a business group, applauded the expected change.

The move was based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services research and would have myriad benefits for business, Executive Director Edward Conklin said in a written statement.

The update would put marijuana on a path to full legalization and make it easier for state-legal businesses to run profitable operations, he said.

“Moving to Schedule III represents a tectonic shift in our nation’s drug laws. The US Cannabis Council is committed to ending federal cannabis prohibition, and we believe that reclassification is a necessary and critical step toward that goal,” he wrote. “In the coming days, we will submit comments to the DEA in support of the proposed rule.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump appears ahead of the start of jury selection at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 15, 2024 in New York City. Former President Donald Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial (Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images).

Former President Donald Trump defied a gag order in his New York state hush-money trial by posting attacks on likely witnesses on his social media platform and campaign website, the judge in the case ruled Tuesday.

Judge Juan M. Merchan fined Trump $9,000 for nine violations of an order barring him from making public statements about “reasonably foreseeable witnesses” or prospective jurors in the case, in which Trump is accused of disguising payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels to conceal an alleged affair.

Merchan also ordered the offending posts to be taken down by 2:15 p.m. Eastern Tuesday.

Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee for president, had posted to his social media site, Truth Social, and to his campaign website comments about Daniels and Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and fixer, who prosecutors say delivered a $130,000 payment to Daniels.

Cohen and Daniels are expected to testify for the prosecution in the criminal trial, the first involving a former U.S. president.

Trump did not deny posting any of the items, but said they were in response to political attacks by Cohen and Daniels. Merchan’s order allowed Trump to respond to political attacks.

Prosecutors had asked Merchan to fine Trump for 10 statements, but the judge gave Trump a pass on the first post in question, which Merchan said could be interpreted as a response to tweets from Cohen that could be considered political attacks.

Merchan said Tuesday he was broadly interpreting political attacks out of deference to Trump’s First Amendment right to free speech, which he said was especially important as Trump runs again for the White House.

“It is critically important that Defendant’s legitimate free speech rights not be curtailed, that he be able to fully campaign for the office which he seeks and that he be able to respond and defend himself against political attacks,” Merchan wrote. “For that reason, this Court exercised discretion when it crafted the Expanded Order and delayed issuing it until the eve of trial.”

Reposts as endorsements

Trump also argued that “reposts” from other accounts should not count as his own speech.

Merchan roundly rejected that argument, noting Trump has bragged about the size of his audience on Truth Social and fully controlled its content.

“There can be no doubt whatsoever, that Defendant’s intent and purpose when reposting, is to communicate to his audience that he endorses and adopts the posted statement as his own,” Merchan said. “It is counterintuitive and indeed absurd, to read the Expanded Order to not proscribe statements that Defendant intentionally selected and published to maximize exposure.”

Tuesday’s order also warns Trump “that the Court will not tolerate continued willful violations” of the gag order and warned that Merchan may impose jail time for further violations.

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who is the ranking minority member on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, told reporters in Washington Tuesday that he did not expect the ruling to lead Trump to change his behavior.

“I don’t think he’ll take it seriously, unless he’s going to be held overnight or something like that,” Raskin said. “He acts with utter contempt towards the rule of law.”

Raskin, a constitutional law professor, was the lead impeachment manager during Trump’s second impeachment, which dealt with the then-president’s efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Raskin also was a member of the House Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The trial resumed Tuesday with testimony from Gary Farro, a former banker of Cohen’s, after a break Monday.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

A deal for FAA reauthorization would add flights to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, despite opposition from U.S. senators from Virginia and Maryland, who said in a letter on Monday, April 29, 2024, that the move would hurt safety efforts. Shown is the terminal and air traffic control tower at Washington National (Patrick Donovan/Getty Photos).

Key members of Congress announced an agreement Monday on a $105 billion bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration for five years ahead of a May 10 deadline.

The 1,000-page bill would raise hiring targets for air traffic control and would codify in law a rule the Biden administration introduced this month requiring airlines to offer refunds for canceled or significantly delayed flights, among other consumer-focused provisions.

The legislation also would add flights to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, despite opposition from U.S. senators from Virginia and Maryland who said in a letter Monday the move would hurt safety efforts.

The compromise measure was negotiated by U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington state, and ranking Republican Ted Cruz of Texas and U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, and ranking Democrat Rick Larsen, a Washington Democrat.

The four lawmakers released a joint statement announcing the agreement early Monday praising their “bipartisan, bicameral, comprehensive agreement.”

“The American people deserve nothing less than the safest and most efficient aerospace system in the world, and to that end, our bill provides critical safety enhancements, grows America’s aviation workforce, invests in infrastructure at airports of all sizes, sets clear priorities for advancing innovative aviation solutions, improves the flying public’s travel experience, and ensures a healthy general aviation sector for years to come,” the lawmakers said.

The bill would authorize $66.7 billion to fund key safety programs such as aircraft safety certification and the hiring of air traffic controllers and technical engineers. It would also authorize $19.35 billion for infrastructure improvements. It would more than double annual funding for the Essential Air Service program that subsidizes flights to small rural airports.

No votes have been scheduled in either chamber on the measure, which President Joe Biden must sign by midnight on May 10 to avoid a lapse in FAA authority.

Washington National Airport

With endorsements from committee leaders on both sides of the aisle, the bill should have broad bipartisan appeal in both chambers of Congress.

But senators from the states bordering Washington, D.C., said Monday they opposed the provision adding five incoming and five outgoing flights to Washington’s Reagan National Airport, or DCA, located in Northern Virginia just across the Potomac River.

In a statement, Democratic Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia and Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland vowed to “continue to fight against this ridiculous and dangerous provision.”

Two planes cleared to take off from the busy airport came within 400 feet of crashing in an April 18 incident. The near-miss should have underscored the crowded conditions at DCA, which, as the closest airport to the Capitol, is a favorite of members of Congress, the senators wrote.

Committee members, none of whom are from the area, “decided to ignore the flashing red warning light of the recent near collision of two aircraft at DCA and jam even more flights onto the busiest runway in America,” the senators said. “It should go without saying that the safety of the traveling public should be a higher priority than the convenience of a few lawmakers who want direct flights home from their preferred airport.”

Because the federal government owns DCA and Dulles International Airport further into the Northern Virginia suburbs, Congress has the power to make operational changes.

Consumer provisions

The bill includes several provisions meant to protect consumers.

It would establish in law a rule the Biden administration proposed this month to require airlines to offer cash refunds for flight delays of more than three hours for domestic flights or six hours for international travel.

The Biden administration had sought such a measure, even as it pursued the rule.

It would also require airline credits to be effective for at least five years, bar airlines from charging families to sit together and require the Transportation Department to create a digital dashboard of the minimum seat sizes for U.S. airlines. It does not mandate a national standard for seat size, but it does direct the FAA to decide if a rule on the issue is needed.

The legislation would establish a Senate-confirmed position of deputy secretary for consumer protection, who would run a new office with an annual budget of $14 million dedicated to consumer issues.

CAPTION: Dozens of anti-Trump protesters gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 25, 2024, while the justices heard arguments about whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution on criminal charges related to his actions while in office (Jane Norman/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical Thursday of former President Donald Trump’s argument he is immune from criminal charges that he tried to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

But conservatives who dominate the court appeared open to returning key questions to a trial court, possibly delaying Trump’s prosecution beyond the November election — and essentially assisting the former president as he fights legal challenges on multiple fronts.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has argued in a federal trial court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that his actions following the 2020 election and leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, were “official acts” conducted while still in office and therefore are not subject to criminal prosecution.

While court precedent establishes that U.S. presidents are immune to civil damages for their official acts, and to criminal prosecution while in office, the justices now must decide the unanswered question of whether former presidents are absolutely immune from criminal law.

At oral arguments Thursday in Trump v. United States, much of the discussion centered on what should be considered an official presidential act.

Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, of St. Louis, argued that nearly everything a president does in office — including hypotheticals about ordering a military coup or assassinating a political rival — could be considered official acts.

While much of the court appeared skeptical of that broad view of official acts, several justices on the conservative wing asked about having the trial court determine what acts should be considered official. They also suggested prosecutors could drop sections of the four-count indictment against Trump that dealt with official acts.

The court’s three liberal justices voiced serious concerns about Trump’s immunity argument, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wondering aloud if the court accepting a broad view of criminal immunity for the president would make the Oval Office “the seat of criminal activity.”

The case is one of four in state and federal courts in which criminal charges have been made against Trump. On Thursday, he was in a New York state courtroom where he faces charges in an ongoing hush-money trial; the judge there did not allow him to attend the Supreme Court arguments.

Conservative justices asked if they could avoid the constitutional question by having the trial court, presided over by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, determine which parts of the allegations could be considered official or unofficial acts.

Special counsel Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors have indicated that prosecuting only Trump’s private conduct would be sufficient, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.

“The normal process, what Mr. Sauer asked, would be for us to remand if we decided that there were some official acts immunity, and to let that be sorted out below,” Barrett said, referring to a process in which a case is sent back to a lower court. “It is another option for the special counsel to just proceed based on the private conduct and drop the official conduct.”

‘Absolute immunity’

Sauer argued, as he has for months, for “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for presidents acting in their official capacity.

No president who has not been impeached and removed from office can be prosecuted for official actions, Sauer said, broadly interpreting the meaning of official acts.

Liberal justices questioned Sauer about how far his definition of official acts would stretch. Trump’s attorney was reluctant to list any exceptions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked a hypothetical that arose in a lower court: Would it be an official act for the president to order the assassination of a political rival?

“That could well be an official act,” Sauer answered.

He also answered Justice Elena Kagan that it could be an official act for a president to order a military coup, though Sauer said “it would depend on the circumstances.”

Michael R. Dreeben, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, argued that Trump’s broad view of presidential immunity would break a fundamental element of U.S. democracy, that no one is above the law.

“His novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power,” Dreeben said.

Jackson, questioning Sauer, appeared to agree with that argument.

She said Sauer appeared worried that the president would be “chilled” by potential criminal prosecution, but she said there would be “a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn’t chilled.”

“Once we say, ‘No criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office,” Jackson said.

‘A special, peculiarly precarious position’

But other members of the court appeared more amenable to Sauer’s argument that subjecting presidents to criminal prosecution would constrain them.

Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s conservatives, asked Dreeben about Trump’s argument that a president’s duties require a broad view of immunity.

The president has to make difficult decisions, sometimes in areas of law that are unsettled, Alito said.

“I understand you to say, ‘If he makes a mistake, he makes a mistake, he’s subject to the criminal laws just like anybody else,’” Alito said. “You don’t think he’s in a special, peculiarly precarious position?”

Dreeben answered that the president has access to highly qualified legal advice and that making a mistake is not what generally leads to criminal prosecution.

He also noted that the allegations against Trump involve him going beyond his powers as president to interfere with the certification of an election, which is not a presidential power in the Constitution.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump appears in court for his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments on April 23, 2024, at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City. Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial (Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images).

The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal case in New York appeared to strongly disagree Tuesday with the former president’s lawyers’ explanation for why he should be considered in compliance with a gag order in the case.

In a Tuesday morning hearing to determine whether to fine Trump for violating the order, Judge Juan Merchan warned Trump’s legal team it was “losing all credibility with the court” for failing to provide any backing for its argument.

Trump has routinely posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, to complain about the case, despite a gag order that prohibits him from making public statements about potential witnesses.

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records for reimbursing his attorney and personal fixer at the time, Michael Cohen, for a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. It is the first criminal trial against a former U.S. president.

Trump has posted on social media to criticize Cohen and Daniels, as well as reposting articles and video clips that disparage the case entirely.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche argued Tuesday that many of Trump’s posts were sharing others’ content, including a clip from the Fox News host Jesse Watters that complained of supposed unfair treatment toward Trump.

Merchan asked Blanche why sharing content should be considered different from Trump using his own words to violate the order. The judge asked Blanche if there was case law to back up his argument.

Blanche said he had none and called it “common sense,” according to reporters in the courtroom.

Trump was trying hard to comply with the gag order, Blanche said.

“You’re losing all credibility with the court,” Merchan responded, according to reports.

Prosecutors have asked Merchan to fine Trump $1,000 for each violation of the gag order and to warn him that future violations could lead to jail time.

Merchan did not rule on the issue Tuesday.

After the trial wrapped for the day, Trump re-aired his complaints about the order.

“I think it’s a disgrace, it’s totally unconstitutional,” Trump told reporters leaving the courtroom. “I’m not allowed to defend myself and yet, other people are allowed to say whatever they want about me. Very, very unfair.”

Second day of testimony

The jury of 12 New Yorkers was absent for the arguments on the gag order but arrived to hear a second day of testimony from David Pecker, the former publisher of the tabloid National Enquirer.

Pecker had for years protected Trump from damaging stories, including those involving extramarital affairs, by buying the rights to such stories and not publishing them. The exercise is known as catch and kill. It is made possible by National Enquirer’s practice, unlike mainstream news outlets, of paying sources for the rights to stories.

Prosecutors sought to establish Trump and Pecker had a deal that was aimed at protecting Trump’s reputation into the 2016 election.

That would bolster prosecutors’ argument that Trump paid Stormy Daniels, an adult film star who says she had an affair with Trump, in return for her silence in the closing weeks of the election.

Pecker testified Tuesday that he met with Trump and Cohen in 2015 and the three came to an “agreement among friends” that Pecker would seek to catch and kill potentially damaging stories to Trump.

He did so twice, he said.

He paid $30,000 to a doorman at Trump Tower who shared a rumor that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock.

And he paid $150,000 to a former Playboy model who said she had a long-term affair with Trump, he said, according to reports.

The tabloid also completely fabricated a story meant to help Trump, Pecker testified.

He said a 2016 story linking the father of Trump’s then-rival for the GOP nomination, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy was “created” by manipulating unrelated photographs, NBC News reported.

Pecker said he took direction from Cohen on which primary opponents to target with negative stories.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump appears ahead of the start of jury selection at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 15, 2024 in New York City. Former President Donald Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial (Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images).

The New York state court trying former President Donald Trump on criminal charges empaneled a full 12-person jury on the third day of the trial Thursday, according to reports.

The trial approached the end of its first phase Thursday afternoon as one of six alternate jurors was also selected. Selection of more alternates will continue Friday.

Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing the case, said Tuesday that oral arguments could begin as early as the start of next week, and the selection of jurors appeared to make that possibility more likely. The court did not meet Wednesday.

Seven jurors had been chosen before Thursday, but two were excused before the court broke for lunch. Seven more jurors were chosen in the afternoon.

The trial, which could go weeks, is keeping Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, away from the campaign trail. He complained to reporters as he exited the courtroom that the trial was interfering with his campaign, CNN reported.

During a break Thursday, the former president posted a message on his social media platform blasting the U.S. House bipartisan foreign aid package, which Republican Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has endorsed.

A New York grand jury last year charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, saying he lied about payments his former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the leadup to the 2016 presidential election to cover up an affair. Trump has denied the affair.

Cohen is expected to take the stand during the trial, and Trump’s defense team will likely make his credibility a major issue. Cohen first denied any role in the payments, but later admitted to paying Daniels $130,000.

In 2018, he pleaded guilty to federal charges, including perjury, for lying to a congressional committee about a separate incident and served a prison sentence.Some polling suggests a guilty verdict in the trial could hurt Trump’s standing with voters, though observers differ on whether even a felony conviction would seriously erode his base of support.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for his arraignment at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 4, 2023 in New York City. With the indictment, Trump becomes the first former U.S. president in history to be charged with a criminal offense (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images).

Donald Trump on Monday in a New York City courtroom will make history as the first former U.S. president to stand trial in criminal proceedings.

And it raises new issues for the presumptive Republican nominee for president in November, even as he builds a political brand that so far has seemed immune from accusations of wrongdoing.

Trump is accused of falsifying business records to cover up payments made during his first White House run in 2016 to the adult film star Stormy Daniels in return for her silence about an alleged affair.

It’s a somewhat complicated, documents-based case in which prosecutors must convince jurors that bookkeeping errors were committed with the aim of illegally affecting an election, Jessica A. Levinson, the director of the Public Service Institute at Loyola Marymount University’s law school, said in an interview.

And though some experts consider it an election interference case, it’s neither the most serious allegation Trump faces nor the easiest for prosecutors to prove, Levinson said.

“This case is being asked to bear more weight than it possibly should or could,” Levinson said. “It’s being asked to be a bellwether, a referendum on Trump. And it’s a state criminal case. It’s not more, it’s not less, but the amount of attention it’s getting is obviously outsized.

“For people who feel like Trump should be held to account, now all eyes are on this one business records case,” she added. “When you think about the things that were most harmful to our democracy, arguably this isn’t the case that should have gone first.”

The outcome of the trial could affect voters’ perceptions of the other prosecutions, Levinson said.

The case is one of four against Trump involving criminal charges, two in state courts and two in federal courts. A state prosecution in Georgia accuses him of conspiring to overturn that state’s election results.

The two cases in the federal courts include a federal charge related to Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, and another federal case charging Trump with improperly storing classified documents after he left office.

Election interference?

Norm Eisen, a legal analyst who was Democratic co-counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment on charges he solicited election interference from Ukraine during the 2016 election, said the New York state case should also be considered an election interference case.

Levinson, an expert on the law of the political process, including campaign finance law, agreed, though she said the allegations are not at the same level as charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.

The payments to Daniels were meant to disrupt the 2016 election by withholding key information from voters, she said. They began shortly after video footage surfaced of Trump bragging about grabbing women’s genitals.

Prosecutors say allegations of infidelity with a porn actor would have further eroded Trump’s support with women voters and the payments were meant to stop that.

The allegations in the case are violations of election law and campaign finance law, Levinson noted.

“It’s not the same as ‘I don’t want you to count up Electoral College votes,’” she said, referring to the charges in other election interference cases. But “it is about, in my view, trying to hide a story from the voters right after they had just heard the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape and right before they were going to the ballot box.”

Trump has consistently characterized the case, as he has with all the criminal charges against him, as a political witch hunt by Democrats to undermine a political rival.

In a fundraising appeal Friday, Trump repeated the message.

“ON MONDAY ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!” the email said. “BIDEN AND HIS ALLIES WANT ME LOCKED AWAY IN PRISON! RABID DEMOCRATS ARE POISED TO RAISE MILLIONS WHILE I’M STUCK DEFENDING MYSELF IN COURT!”

That critique ignores the high standard of evidence needed to bring criminal charges, and doesn’t refute the allegations, but that type of all-caps accusation has proved effective at keeping many Republican voters supportive of Trump.

Spokespeople for the Trump campaign did not return messages seeking comment for this story.

In the courtroom

The trial will start Monday with jury selection, which could last several days or longer.

Once the actual arguments begin, the case will hinge on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s ability to show jurors that the irregularities in Trump’s business records were in service of committing another crime.

Paying hush money is not illegal by itself, Levinson said, so the violation of campaign finance law is crucial to the case.

Bragg and his team should try to simplify the case and “emphasize over and over again” that the payments were meant to influence the election, she said.

Trump’s defense will likely focus on Michael Cohen, the former vice president of the Trump Organization and Trump’s onetime personal counsel who allegedly delivered the payments to Daniels.

Cohen, who served a federal prison sentence for tax fraud and perjury, has publicly described Trump’s role in the alleged scheme. But his credibility, after his convictions and the public reversal of his account, is a major question.

Electoral impact of conviction unclear

For more than eight years, Trump has successfully deflected and even used to his advantage the types of scandals that were previously believed to be fatal to political candidates, disproving predictions of an imminent political collapse so regularly it became a cliche.

He has so far weathered any significant damage from the criminal proceedings, including the New York case, and even gained some political benefit from them.

He has said the prosecutions are politically motivated attempts by Democrats to weaken their chief political opponent. Republican voters, at least, seem to largely accept that argument, allowing Trump to coast to the nomination early this year.

And the criminal allegations have not yet critically damaged Trump’s reputation with general election voters. He is polling close to President Joe Biden in several swing states and in national surveys, though voters have told pollsters that their opinions may change if Trump is convicted.

But there is reason to doubt that a conviction would have any impact on Trump’s position with voters, Seth Masket, the director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, said in an interview with States Newsroom.

Political observers wondered throughout 2023 how much the four criminal indictments against Trump would affect the former president in the 2024 primaries, Masket said.

The accusations, especially the New York charges that were the first to be revealed, seemed to actually help in the nominating race. His rivals in that contest largely defended Trump.

Even if he’s convicted, Republican voters in a polarized country are more likely to side with Trump than a judicial system he describes daily as corrupt, Masket said.

“Everything we’ve seen so far suggests that every bad thing that happens to him causes Republicans to rally behind him and ratify his view that the system is after him,” he said. “The idea that a conviction would be perceived broadly enough across parties as completely legitimate and aboveboard I think is pretty unlikely.”

Eisen, who said he expects Trump to be convicted in the New York case, disagrees, saying the spectacle of a criminal conviction would break Trump’s hold on voters.

“When a jury of Trump’s peers — and their peers, ordinary Americans — sit in judgment and reach a verdict, if they do, that’s a different order of magnitude,” Eisen said. “And then when you combine that with a criminal sentence following that kind of verdict, well then you really are in a whole different ballgame.”

Beyond the first trial

But if Trump is not convicted, or if the charges are reduced to misdemeanors, it could insulate him in voters’ minds against the other pending cases, Levinson said.

Because Trump has for years described the legal actions against him as political, winning the first case to reach court could help reinforce that message, she said.

“If he’s anything short of convicted on the felonies, then it’s just a huge win for him because he’s going to take this to say, ‘Look, every legal action against me is baseless,’” Levinson said. “I don’t think it has anything to do legally with the other cases. But it will be politically a huge win for the former president.”

It’s unclear what the historical import of the first trial of a former president will be, Masket said. But the concept that Trump remains a viable presidential contender — and therefore somewhat immune from criminal accountability — is a troubling sign for U.S. democracy.

“We repeatedly get this message that no one is above the law, except maybe this one guy,” Masket said. “And that’s a problem. That just undermines a lot of people’s faith in the democratic system.”

Special counsel Jack Smith delivers remarks on a recently unsealed indictment against former President Donald Trump at the Justice Department on June 9, 2023, in Washington, D.C. Former U.S. President Donald Trump had been indicted on 37 felony counts in the special counsel’s classified documents probe. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Donald Trump’s view of absolute immunity for actions he took as president would radically change U.S. democracy and give presidents unprecedented power akin to monarchs rather than elected leaders, U.S. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith wrote in a reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court late Monday.

Smith’s 66-page brief, answering Trump’s argument to the high court that federal criminal charges against him for seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election should be dropped because he was president at the time, called Trump’s claim a “radical suggestion” that would upend foundational principles of U.S. democracy.

Trump’s argument that conduct a president commits in office cannot be prosecuted “would free the President from virtually all criminal law — even crimes such as bribery, murder, treason, and sedition,” Smith wrote.

At oral arguments in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in January, Trump lawyer D. John Sauer said his team’s theory of broad presidential immunity would mean that a president could not be prosecuted for ordering SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, unless the president was first impeached and removed from office by Congress.

In Trump’s brief to the court last month, his lawyers claimed a theory of “absolute presidential immunity” that asserts a president cannot be criminally indicted for actions taken in office.

The one exception to that rule is a president who has been impeached and removed from office, Trump’s legal team has argued.

Trump was impeached by the Democrat-controlled U.S. House for inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attempted to block the certification of the 2020 election results. An evenly split Senate fell short of the two-thirds standard for conviction, though seven Republicans voted with all Democrats and independents to convict.

Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for president this year.

Smith said Monday that Trump’s broad immunity argument placed too much faith in Congress’ execution of an inherently political process to achieve criminal accountability.

Impeachment is “not intended to provide accountability under the ordinary course of law,” he wrote.

Historical examples

The prosecutor also took aim at the historical examples Trump cited to back up his immunity claim.

The examples Trump used either applied only to sitting presidents and not to former presidents, or were used to dismiss civil lawsuits and not criminal charges, Smith said.

In contrast, the Watergate scandal provided an example to show that presidents have long understood they are subject to criminal justice after they leave office.

By offering a pardon, President Gerald R. Ford implied that former President Richard Nixon could be held liable for criminal conduct. And by accepting the pardon, Nixon endorsed that view, Smith said.

Every president since George Washington has understood they are subject to criminal charges and punishment, Smith said.

The U.S. legal system rests on the principle that no person — no matter their office — is above the law, Smith said.

A different interpretation, including the one advanced by Trump and his legal team, would make the presidency indistinguishable from a monarchy, Smith wrote. That view “would have been anathema to the Framers” of the Constitution, who “adopted a system of checks and balances to avoid” dangers of a monarch who is above the law.

Criminal charges are not civil suits

Smith also argued that Trump’s claim that rejecting a broad interpretation of presidential immunity would motivate political prosecutions of every future former president was unfounded.

Protections against civil suits may be appropriate, Smith said, citing Supreme Court precedent.

But federal criminal charges, which can be brought only by the Department of Justice and are subject to “institutional standards of impartial prosecution,” are much harder to abuse, Smith said.

There are “strong safeguards against groundless prosecutions,” Smith said.

Smith’s brief was a response to Trump’s argument last month in which the former president advanced his theory of “absolute presidential immunity.”

Trump’s attorneys said presidents needed immunity from any criminal prosecutions for the office itself to function. The framers were willing to trade a president’s criminal accountability for the office’s independence, Trump’s team argued, saying that a similar prohibition against civil suits should apply to the charges brought by a federal grand jury.

Up next

Trump has the option to respond to Smith’s brief by the end of the day April 15.

Oral arguments on the immunity question are scheduled for April 25.

The Supreme Court case is meant to decide a pretrial issue in a federal case related to Trump’s part in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Trump asked the trial court to dismiss the charges based on his presidential immunity claim. Both the trial judge and the D.C. Circuit rejected that argument.

In the Monday brief, prosecutors asked the court to quickly issue an opinion in the case. The start of the trial has been delayed for months while the immunity question has been pending.

With less than seven months to Election Day, the four criminal proceedings against Trump will increasingly conflict with his campaign schedule as he pursues a return to the White House.

A separate criminal trial — on New York state business records falsification charges — against Trump is scheduled to begin April 15.

Simrand Thind holds a Leave it Blank flyer outside of Masjid Al-Abidin on March 29, 2024, in the Queens borough of New York City. The “Leave It Blank NY” campaign, which gained about 12% of the vote statewide on April 2, sought to persuade primary voters to submit empty ballots in protest of the Biden administration’s handling of the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas (Adam Gray/Getty Images).

Joe Biden has a problem.

Seven months ahead of the presidential election, some progressives, young voters and Muslim American voters are showing serious reservations about the Democrat’s reelection campaign as his administration backs Israel’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

“For some of those people — maybe a critical number — what’s happening in Gaza is so salient and existential that they really see this election as a referendum on that issue,” Larry Jacobs, the director of the Center for the Study of Politics at the University of Minnesota, said in an interview.

The pushback has played out in otherwise uneventful primaries as Biden has clinched the presidential nomination. About 13% of Michigan’s Democratic primary voters cast ballots in February for uncommitted, rather than Biden.

In Minnesota a week later, the percentage grew to 19% of the Democratic electorate. Both states have sizable Muslim American populations and progressive activists who oppose Biden’s handling of the war in Gaza.

And in Wisconsin on April 2, more than 45,000 Democrats voted uninstructed instead of for Biden. That total more than doubled Biden’s margin of victory in the state in the 2020 general election.

The movement has also landed in New Jersey, where in most of the state, Democrats on June 4 will be able to essentially cast an “uncommitted” vote by choosing delegates under the slogan “Justice for Palestine, Permanent Ceasefire Now.”

Recent polling has shown dissatisfaction with Biden among young voters, who skew more progressive than the general electorate, and are demanding a ceasefire to a war that has so far claimed more than 30,000 lives in Gaza, according to health authorities there. Moves the administration has taken that critics claim are meant to appease those voters appear to have had little effect.

“He’s in trouble with young voters and voters of color,” Stevie O’Hanlon, the national communications director for the progressive, youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement, said in an interview.

Jacobs said not everyone who cast a protest vote in a primary election will sit out in November.

But the number should be concerning for a Biden campaign that only eked out a victory against Donald Trump four years ago, Jacobs said.

Anger flared anew after the Israeli military bombing April 1 that killed seven aid workers, including an American, delivering supplies for World Central Kitchen, a humanitarian nonprofit led by Spanish American celebrity chef José Andrés. Andrés has said the workers were targeted; the Israeli military said April 5 two officers have been dismissed and three others reprimanded.

In a written statement to States Newsroom, a Biden campaign spokesperson said the votes for uncommitted were part of the democratic process and said the president was working to find a peaceful resolution to the war.

“The President believes making your voice heard and participating in our democracy is fundamental to who we are as Americans,” the spokesperson wrote. “He shares the goal for an end to the violence and a just, lasting peace in the Middle East. He’s working tirelessly to that end.”

Era of close elections

In the 2020 election, Biden flipped five states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — that Trump had won in 2016.

Razor-thin margins provided his victories in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin, which he won by a combined margin of less than 50,000 votes.

If those states flipped again in 2024, their 37 electoral votes would be enough to swing the election to Trump.

Additionally, Michigan, which Biden won in 2020 with a margin of 150,000 votes out of about 5.5 million cast, is among the states whose Democratic electorate appears most displeased with the incumbent.

More than 100,000 Democrats voted uncommitted instead of Biden in the primary there last month, showing just how little room for error Biden has to win a second term.

Democratic primary voters casting protest ballots against an incumbent president is not unprecedented. More than 20% of North Carolina Democrats, 14% of Rhode Island Democrats and 11% of Michigan Democrats selected uncommitted over then-President Barack Obama in 2012 on his path to reelection.

But in a 2024 race that could again be decided by slim margins in a handful of states, every lost Democratic vote is a problem for Biden, Jacobs said.

“Slivers really matter,” Jacobs said. “These close elections are happening in a period where Arab Americans and voters from Africa are kind of coming into their own. They have a consciousness of themselves. They have a consciousness of their interests. They’re organized politically.”

End to military support urged

Eighty Muslim American groups wrote to Biden April 3 urging an end to military support of Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The groups said Israel’s military action in Gaza was responsible for significant civilian casualties and widespread food insecurity in the territory.

“Risking your presidential legacy and the reputation of our nation around the world to enable the Netanyahu government’s genocide has been a disastrous decision,” they wrote to Biden. “We implore you to reverse course before thousands more die.”

The advocacy for Palestinians comes at a time when Muslim American communities in the U.S., especially Arab Americans outside Detroit and Somali Americans in the Twin Cities, are wielding greater political power, Jacobs said.

A leader among Minnesota’s Muslim American voters, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat who represents Minneapolis and the first Somali American member of Congress, said in a CNN interview last month that she would vote for Biden despite her differences with him over Israel.

However, she said, “I think it is the responsibility of every citizen of this country that cares for the humanity of all to continue to push this administration to do what it can do to end the onslaught that Palestinians are living through every single day.”

But communicating with those groups generally has proven a challenge for Biden, Jacobs said, despite efforts by the administration and campaign to make inroads.

“You’ve got a kind of mid-20th-century politician who really doesn’t understand the enormous shift in American politics, as you’re getting large groups of voters of color, with a whole variety of kinds of backgrounds and interests, moving into the electorate,” he said.

“What would have worked with blue-collar workers in Detroit in 1970 is just not going to work with Arab Americans. And understanding that, appreciating it, I think is a real barrier for the White House.”

Biden condemned the killing of the aid workers and told Netanyahu on an April 4 call that further U.S. aid would be conditional on Israel putting in place “a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers.”

But while “jawboning from the president” may attract some headlines, it has been insufficient for voters who want to see policy changes, Jacobs said.

“These voters are smart,” he said. “They see the 2,000-pound bombs are still being sent to Israel.”

Eyes on Gaza

Even progressive groups that traditionally are not active on foreign policy will evaluate Biden’s handling of the war when deciding how much support to lend the president’s reelection effort.

O’Hanlon said whether and to what degree Sunrise campaigns for Biden in the fall will depend in part on the administration’s actions between now and Election Day on climate — and Gaza.

“As a climate group, we’re fighting to make sure that people have clean air, access to clean water, to healthy food, that everyone has safe homes and doesn’t have to fear for losing their loved ones to something that they didn’t cause,” O’Hanlon said. “Whether that’s climate change or bombs from the (Israeli military).”

But surveys of young voters also show that, while they are more likely to oppose Israeli military action against Palestinians, there are a host of other issues affecting their votes.

Inflation, economy weigh on voters

Data show that the Israel-Hamas war, and the U.S. role in it, may not be the most important issue influencing younger voters, who tend to be more progressive.

An Economist/YouGov poll conducted March 30 to April 2 found that foreign policy was tied for 13th among voters younger than 30 in a list of 15 issues respondents were asked to select as the “most important issue for you.”

Just 1% of respondents said foreign policy was most important. By comparison, 24% said inflation/prices, 14% said health care, 12% said jobs and the economy, and 11% said abortion.

That’s consistent with survey data by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, or CIRCLE, at Tufts University from last fall that showed 10 issues that voters ages 18 to 34 ranked as their top three.

Cost of living and inflation topped the list, with 53% surveyed including the issue in their top three. Jobs that pay a living wage, gun violence prevention and climate change were between 26% and 28% of responses. Expanding access to abortion was the fifth-most popular response at 19%.

The CIRCLE poll, with questions designed before the Israel-Hamas war and surveys conducted in the early weeks of the war, found that among youth voters who called themselves extremely likely to vote, Biden held a 21-percentage-point advantage, roughly the same margin as he won in the 2020 election.

Other foreign policy crises, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have not significantly boosted the importance of foreign policy to young voters, according to a follow-up report CIRCLE published in February, though there are signs that the war in Gaza is breaking through more.

Perceptions of the war

Younger voters are more likely to describe Israel’s action in Gaza as “genocide,” according to an Economist/YouGov poll that found 49% of young voters agreed with that description.

They are less likely to describe Israel’s reasons for fighting as valid, and more likely to consider Hamas’ reason for fighting valid, according to a separate Pew Research survey in March.

“Beyond any specific data points, our sense is that this issue is certainly important to many young people, and that youth overall do seem to have different views than older Americans,” Alberto Medina, an author of the CIRCLE poll, wrote in an email to States Newsroom.

“That said, as our own poll reveals and as we’ve been tracking in recent election cycles, young people do not tend to be single-issue voters and they have a wide range of economic, environmental, and social issues they’re concerned about that may drive their electoral participation this November.”

But as the war has dragged on, Biden has seen a drastic change in support among young voters.

A February Economist/YouGov poll showed his job approval rating with voters ages 18 to 29 was 20 points higher than his disapproval rating. That was much better than the net +4 rating voters the same age gave Obama, the last president to win reelection, at the same point in his reelection race.

But the more recent data from the same pollster showed Biden’s approval rating had nearly flipped among young voters in less than two months. In the most recent poll, the percentage of young voters who disapproved of his performance was 18 points higher than those who approved.

‘Mixed record’

The Biden White House has taken steps in recent months to highlight action on other issues that are important to younger voters, even as that strategy has attracted criticism that the White House is “playing politics” in an election year.

Jacobs, the political scientist, said Biden can rightly tout to progressive voters a highly effective first term of historic accomplishments.

“Biden has probably been the most progressive president since (Lyndon) Johnson,” Jacobs said. “The administration has done a whole lot and it’s tended to be progressive leaning.”

In February, the Biden administration paused exports of liquid natural gas to certain countries, giving environmental groups a policy win.

The White House deployed Vice President Kamala Harris to North Carolina, a competitive presidential election state, on April 3 to announce $20 billion in grant funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a program created in Democrats’ 2022 climate, taxes and policy bill that Biden championed.

The administration and campaign have continually highlighted Biden’s moves to forgive student debt.

Those moves have opened the administration to accusations of valuing electoral politics over policy.

“The White House has gone out of its way to signal that the pause is a political ploy intended to get votes in an election year—it’s all about politics, not economics,” U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin III, a centrist West Virginia Democrat and frequent Biden critic, said of the LNG export pause.

Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos tweeted about loan forgiveness that Biden would “stop at nothing to buy votes.”

And even as Biden promotes policies meant to appeal to progressives, that has not been enough to win full-throated endorsements from some on the far left.

“His record on climate is mixed,” O’Hanlon, with Sunrise, said. “It’s both true that he’s delivered more on climate than any president in history, and it’s also true that the bar is incredibly low.”

Workers on Wednesday, March 27, 2024, continued to investigate and search for victims after the cargo ship Dali collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge, causing it to collapse, early Tuesday in Baltimore, Maryland (Scott Olson/Getty Images).

U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg outlined Wednesday the immediate and longer-term priorities the Biden administration is pursuing in the aftermath of the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore that left six presumed dead.

While many questions remained roughly 36 hours after a massive cargo ship struck the bridge and caused the deadly collapse, Buttigieg at a White House press briefing reiterated President Joe Biden’s pledge a day earlier for the federal government to fund the full cost of rebuilding the bridge.

The U.S. Coast Guard is also leading efforts to clear debris from the site to reopen operations at the busy Port of Baltimore, Vice Admiral Peter Gautier, the deputy commandant for operations for the Coast Guard, said at the briefing.

“It’s just too soon to say” exactly how much money or time will be needed to rebuild the bridge or open the port, Buttigieg told reporters.

“Rebuilding will not be quick or easy or cheap,” Buttigieg said. “But we will get it done.”

The U.S. Transportation Department received a preliminary estimate from the Maryland Department of Transportation around the time Buttigieg addressed reporters at the Wednesday afternoon briefing, he said.

He did not share the sum requested, but said the state’s official request would allow federal money to flow even before a full cost is known.

Congressional action likely needed

The bipartisan infrastructure law enacted in 2021 authorized funding for the Transportation Department’s emergency relief program, which would likely be a mechanism for federal funding, Buttigieg said, though he added it’s likely Congress will have to approve more emergency appropriations.

“It is certainly possible – I would go so far as to say likely – that we may be turning to Congress in order to help top-up those funds,” Buttigieg said. “But that shouldn’t be a barrier to the immediate next few days starting to get the ball rolling.”

The emergency relief account has about $950 million, Buttigieg said, “but also a long line of needs and projects behind that.”

The Federal Highway Administration’s emergency fund allocated about $560 million in fiscal 2024.

Asked if the companies that own and operate the ship involved, the Dali, would be made to pay for reconstruction, Buttigieg said the government would pursue accountability for “any private party found to be responsible,” but that Biden didn’t want to wait for that process to play out before sending funds to Maryland.

For the second day in a row, Biden spoke with Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, members of the state’s congressional delegation and local leaders and reiterated his administration’s support “every step of the way,” according to a White House pool report.

The administration could ease regulatory requirements to speed bridge construction, Buttigieg said, though he noted it was too early to know what regulations would be at play.

“We have a clear direction from the president to tear down any barriers, bureaucratic as well as financial, that could affect the timeline of this project,” he said.

Port reopening

Buttigieg did not have an estimate for how long it would take to rebuild the bridge or to reopen the port. The initial construction of the Key Bridge took five years in the 1970s, he said.

“That does not necessarily mean it will take five years to replace, but that tells you what went into that original structure,” he said. “So it is going to be some time.”

The port could be reopened before a new bridge is built, he said.

Debris from the collapsed bridge is blocking the shipping channel connecting the port to the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. The remains of the bridge must be cleared before the port can restart operations.

Reopening the port is among the administration’s top priorities in the aftermath of the collapse.

The port is a major economic hub, directly supporting 8,000 jobs and about $2 million in wages daily, Buttigieg said.

The port also usually handles between $100 million and $200 million in cargo daily. But the disruption to shipping traffic is slightly less urgent, Buttigieg said.

Ships often visit the port as part of a run along the Eastern Seaboard, including the Port of New York and New Jersey and Virginia ports, he said. Cargo is already being diverted to other East Coast ports, he said.

“That said, the Port of Baltimore is an important port,” he said. “So for our supply chains, and for all the workers who depend on it for their income, we’re going to help to get it open as soon as safely possible.”

Investigation ongoing

Buttigieg declined to comment in detail on the investigation into the crash, which is being conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board, an independent agency.

The bridge, which opened in 1977, was not built to withstand the force of a 200-million-pound vessel crashing into a key structural feature, he said, casting doubt on whether any engineering feature could have helped.

“Part of what’s being debated is whether any design feature now known would have made a difference in this case,” Buttigieg said.

But, he said, if the NTSB determines anything that should be considered in regulations, inspections, designs or funding for bridges, the administration would “be ready to apply those findings.”

The cargo ship Dali sits in the water after running into and collapsing the Francis Scott Key Bridge on March 26, 2024 in Baltimore, Maryland. The accident has temporarily closed the Port of Baltimore, one of the largest and busiest on the East Coast of the U.S. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

President Joe Biden called Tuesday for the federal government to foot the bill to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore following its collapse earlier in the day.

The ongoing search-and-rescue operation led by the U.S. Coast Guard is the top priority for now, Biden said in brief remarks from the White House on Tuesday afternoon.

The bridge collapsed around 1:30 a.m. Tuesday after a container ship struck it.

Biden said the federal government should fund all reconstruction costs. Congress would have to approve any federal funding.

“It’s my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstructing the bridge,” Biden said. “And I expect the Congress to support my effort. It’s going to take some time. The people of Baltimore can count on us, though, to stick with them every step of the way.”

Asked if the shipping company should be held responsible for the costs of reconstruction, Biden said the federal government should act before a determination of fault is made.

“That might be, but we’re not going to wait for that to happen,” he said. “We’re going to pay for it to get the bridge rebuilt and open.”

Biden’s public remarks came shortly after meeting with Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, Baltimore County Executive John A. Olszewski Jr. and the Maryland congressional delegation, during which the president said he promised federal resources to rebuild the bridge and reopen the Port of Baltimore, which closed shortly after the bridge collapse.

“I told them we’re going to send all the federal resources they need as they respond to this emergency,” he said. “I mean all the federal resources. And we’re going to rebuild that bridge together.”

Biden said he would visit Baltimore “as quickly as I can.”

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, speaks to reporters March 22, 2024, after filing a motion to vacate against Speaker Mike Johnson (Screenshot from C-SPAN).

Georgia Republican U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a resolution Friday to remove U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson from his position, using the same parliamentary measure that led to Johnson ascending to the speakership last year.

Following a bipartisan vote to approve the six remaining government spending bills for fiscal 2024, Greene filed a motion to vacate the office of the speaker of the House. The $1.2 trillion spending measure passed despite a slim majority of Republicans voting against it. House Republicans ousted Johnson’s predecessor, California’s Kevin McCarthy, over a similar situation.

“This is basically a warning,” Greene told reporters outside the Capitol after filing the motion. “It’s time for us to go through the process, take our time and find a new speaker of the House that will stand with Republicans and our Republican majority instead of standing with Democrats.”

Greene opted not to make the motion privileged, which would have forced a floor vote within days and scuttled a two-week recess set to begin Friday. House rules allow her to force a vote on the measure at any time.

Greene, a conservative who often antagonizes her party’s leadership, said she didn’t aim to “throw the House into chaos,” and wouldn’t put a time limit on her request.

But Greene indicated she will seek to evict Johnson at some point.

“I’m not saying that it won’t happen in two weeks or it won’t happen in a month or who knows when,” she said. “But I am saying the clock has started. It’s time for our conference to choose a new speaker.”

A spokesperson said Johnson will continue doing the job he was elected to do.

“Speaker Johnson always listens to the concerns of members, but is focused on governing,” Johnson spokesperson Raj Shah said in a statement. “He will continue to push conservative legislation that secures our border, strengthens our national defense and demonstrates how we’ll grow our majority.”

Second motion to vacate in five months 

Because the measure is not privileged, the chamber will not vote on it at least until members return from recess.

Republicans, who lost more than three weeks of governing as they sought to replace McCarthy after Florida’s Matt Gaetz and seven other Republicans forced his ouster in October, may not be enthusiastic about enduring another round of leadership uncertainty.

Republicans voted to make the previously little-known Johnson speaker last October after the chamber was virtually frozen following McCarthy’s removal.

Greene “made a big mistake,” Rep. Clay Higgins, Johnson’s fellow Louisiana Republican, said in a video posted to X.

“To think that one of our Republican colleagues would call for (Johnson’s) ouster right now is really, it’s abhorrent to me,” Higgins said. “I stand with Mike Johnson. He is maybe the only guy in history that could potentially perform and help us navigate these very dark and challenging times.”

But because of the conference’s razor-thin 219-213 majority in the House, only a handful of defections from Johnson could force him from office just months into his speakership. That edge could shrink further in coming weeks as Wisconsin’s Mike Gallagher said Friday he will leave office April 19.

If all Democrats vote to remove Johnson — as they did with McCarthy — only three other Republicans, or two after Gallagher leaves, voting with Greene would be enough to remove him. That would force the House to again pause its other business to select a new speaker and risk another acrimonious period of House GOP infighting as the party seeks to unify ahead of November elections.

McCarthy’s removal was the first time the House successfully vacated a speaker.

It resulted from a deal the California Republican made in January 2023 to mollify House conservatives skeptical of him as speaker. McCarthy accepted a rules package that allowed a single member to file a motion to vacate.

Jennifer Shutt and Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

Cattle at Pete and Meagan Lannan’s Barney Creek Livestock operation, based on the Jordan Ranch in Livingston, Montana, on May 23, 2022 (USDA/FPAC photo by Preston Keres).

The U.S. Senate easily passed a resolution Thursday to repeal a Biden administration rule allowing for beef to be imported from Paraguay.

The measure, introduced by Democrat Jon Tester of Montana and Republican Mike Rounds of South Dakota, passed on a bipartisan 70-25 vote. The resolution was made under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to undo executive branch rules within a certain timeframe.

The resolution targets a final rule the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service issued in November that allowed for importation of Paraguayan beef that met certain conditions, including that foot-and-mouth disease had not been diagnosed in the region for at least a year.

Until then, the U.S. had not allowed Paraguayan beef imports since 1997.

Tester and Rounds, who represent major beef-producing states, filed a Congressional Review Act resolution this month to reverse the rule.

They each took to the Senate floor Thursday to advocate for the measure.

Though the risk of foot-and-mouth disease may be low, the effects of just one outbreak would be disastrous for beef producers, Tester said.

“The truth is the administration butchered this decision,” Tester said. “I have serious concerns that Paraguay does not currently meet the animal health standards that are in place to award access to our markets.”

“American producers work tirelessly to produce the safest, highest-quality and most affordable beef in the entire world,” Rounds said. “Our consumers should be able to confidently feed their families beef that has met the rigorous standards required within the United States.”

A similar resolution has been introduced in the House by Rep. Ronny Jackson, a Texas Republican.

Last U.S. case in 1929

Foot-and-mouth disease is a virus that affects animals with split hooves, including common livestock like cows, pigs and sheep.

The U.S. last had a reported case in 1929, but other countries have seen more recent outbreaks. Paraguay reported an outbreak in 2012.

As of September 2022, cattle in South America were 98.6% free of the virus, according to the Pan American Health Organization. That was up from 85% in 2010.

The rule requires that meat can be exported if foot-and-mouth disease has not been diagnosed in the region for at least 12 months, if the meat comes from premises where the disease has not been present during the animals’ lifetimes and if the animals were inspected before and after death.

Geopolitical concerns

President Joe Biden’s administration opposed the congressional resolution, saying the USDA had gone through a robust review process and determined Paraguayan imports were low risk.

In a statement of administration policy, the White House said the rule would have minimal effect on domestic beef production and that overturning it would harm relations with Paraguay.

The resolution would “mark a significant setback in the United States-Paraguay bilateral relationship,” the Tuesday statement read, noting that U.S. adversaries including Russia and China ban Paraguayan beef over geopolitical disagreements.

“This resolution would amplify the false narratives pushed by our adversaries that the United States is not a reliable economic partner,” the administration statement said.

Tester, who is seeking reelection this year in a state that has trended increasingly Republican, has often bucked his party on issues affecting rural interests. He said geopolitical concerns were driving the administration move.

“I think the State Department is having a lot of influence on this decision,” he said.

Tester, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he is appreciative of the need to work with allies. But he said that objective shouldn’t compromise food safety.

“I share my colleagues’ concerns about what’s going on in China and Russia right now,” he said. “I understand the importance of strengthening alliances with partners all over the world, including Paraguay. But I’m telling you that we shouldn’t do it on the backs of hardworking American ranchers.”

Under the November rule, Paraguayan imports would be subject to the same quota level applied to countries in Latin America and elsewhere, the White House said. In part due to the quota, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service expected about 6,500 metric tons of Paraguayan beef would reach the U.S. annually.

U.S. inspectors haven’t visited Paraguayan sites since 2014, Tester and Rounds said in their speeches Thursday.

A bipartisan agreement on government spending for the remainder of fiscal 2024 emerged just before 3 a.m. on March 21, 2024 (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Congress released the final six government funding bills early Thursday, starting off a sprint toward the Friday midnight deadline to wrap up work that was supposed to be finished nearly six months ago.

The bipartisan agreement on the $1.2 trillion spending package, which emerged just before 3 a.m., came less than two weeks after the U.S. House and Senate approved the other six annual appropriations bills.

This package includes the spending measures for some of the most crucial functions of the federal government — the departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, State and Treasury.

The bill would also fund Congress, the Executive Office of the President, the judiciary and the Social Security Administration.

The 1,012-page spending package provides money for hundreds of programs, including many that lawmakers will tout on the campaign trail heading toward the November elections. Included:

• U.S. troops and civilian Defense Department employees will receive a 5.2% pay raise retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024.
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s new headquarters project — which has not only divided Democrats and Republicans, but the congressional delegations from Virginia and Maryland — will receive $200 million for construction on the Greenbelt, Maryland, site via the General Services Administration.
• States will get $55 million in new Election Security Grant funding.
• Customs and Border Protection as well as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement will get more than $4 billion in funding increases.
• Child care and early learning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services will receive a $1 billion increase in funding. The boost will go toward the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which provides grants to state, territorial and tribal agencies, and Head Start, which provides funding to local grantees.
• The U.S. Capitol Police will receive a 7.8% funding increase.
• Afghans who assisted the United States during the war would be eligible for an additional 12,000 Special Immigrant Visas.
• The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, the primary aid organization in Gaza, would be stripped of U.S. funding after Israel accused agency employees of taking part in Oct. 7 attacks.

Weekend work possible

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday morning the package clears “another hurdle towards our ultimate goal of funding the federal government.”

“This funding agreement between the White House and Congressional leaders is good news that comes in the nick of time: When passed it will extinguish any more shutdown threats for the rest of the fiscal year, it will avoid the scythe of budget sequestration and it will keep the government open without cuts or poison pill riders,” he said. “It’s now the job of the House Republican leadership to move this package ASAP.”

After the House votes to approve the package, likely Friday, Schumer said, “the Senate will need bipartisan cooperation to pass it before Friday’s deadline and avoid a shutdown.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said Wednesday during a press conference he expected senators would be in session this weekend to take final votes on the package.

“My assumptions and what I’ve told our members is we’re likely to be here this weekend. That will be determined, however, by how long it stays in the House,” McConnell said.

“And when it’s over here, what we have recently done — and I think hopefully will work again — is that in return for a certain number of amendments, we can finish it quicker, hopefully, than putting us in the position of shutting down the government,” McConnell added.

Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said in a written statement the package would claw back $20.2 billion from the Internal Revenue Service funding that Democrats included in their signature climate change and tax package and $6 billion in unused COVID-19 funds.

On immigration, the funding package “cuts funding to NGOs that incentivize illegal immigration and increases detention capacity and the number of Border Patrol Agents to match levels in the House-passed appropriations bill and the Secure the Border Act (H.R. 2),” he said, referring to non-governmental organizations.

The package also includes funding for the nation’s defense. “This FY24 appropriations legislation is a serious commitment to strengthening our national defense by moving the Pentagon toward a focus on its core mission while expanding support for our brave men and women who serve in uniform,” Johnson said. “Importantly, it halts funding for the United Nations agency which employed terrorists who participated in the October 7 attacks against Israel.”

More than $1B to reduce child care costs

Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said in a written statement that she was “proud to have secured $1 billion more to lower families’ child care costs and help them find pre-K — a critical investment to help tackle the child care crisis that is holding families and our economy back.”

“From day one of this process, I said there would be no extreme, far-right riders to restrict women’s reproductive freedoms — and there aren’t,” Murray said. “Democrats stood firm to protect a woman’s right to choose in these negotiations and focused on delivering investments that matter to working people.”

Democratic lawmakers, Murray said, “defeated outlandish cuts that would have been a gut punch for American families and our economy — and we fought off scores of extreme policies that would have restricted Americans’ fundamental freedoms, hurt consumers while giving giant corporations an unfair advantage, and turned back the clock on historic climate action.”

The House and Senate must debate and approve the measure in less than two days under the stopgap funding agreement, otherwise a weekend funding lapse would begin. If it went on beyond the brief period of the weekend, a partial government shutdown would begin.

The House can easily hold a vote within that timeline, but the Senate will need to reach agreement among all 100 of its members in order to avoid casting votes past that benchmark.

Here’s a look at where Congress increased funding and where it cut spending on these six government funding bills for fiscal year 2024, which began back on Oct. 1.

Defense

Congress plans to spend $824.5 billion on the Defense spending bill, which predominantly funds the Pentagon, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

That bill includes funding for a 5.2% pay raise for military and civilian defense employees that will be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024. The basic allowance for housing will increase by 5.4% and the basic allowance for sustenance will increase by 1.7%.

That total spending level would be divvied up among several core programs, including $176.2 billion for military personnel, an increase of $3.5 billion; $287.2 billion for operations and maintenance, $9.1 billion above current levels; $172 billion for procurement of military equipment, $9.8 billion more than the enacted level; and $148.3 billion for research and development, an $8.6 billion increase, according to a House GOP summary and a summary from House Democrats.

The Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Programs would get $300 million for research and testing as well as $200 million for procurement, including for the Iron Dome and David’s Sling. An additional $300 million would go toward the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, said in a statement the bill “will invest in our ability to stay ahead of the threat of China, defend our country from foreign adversaries while standing firm with America’s allies, and take care of our servicemembers and their families.”

The joint explanatory statement that accompanies the bill calls on the Department of Defense to look into why the military is having difficulty recruiting.

“The Military Services are in the midst of one of the greatest recruiting crises since the creation of the all-volunteer force,” it says. “Since retention of enlisted servicemembers remains strong, those who continue to serve will promote to more senior grades, leaving a distressing shortfall in junior enlisted servicemembers, who account for 40 percent of the total active U.S. military force. The Nation needs America’s youth to strongly consider uniformed service.”

The package calls on the Defense Department to “conduct an independent survey to better understand the failure of recruitment efforts by the services,” according to House Republicans’ summary of the bill.

The secretary of Defense must also brief the Defense Appropriations subcommittees on a proposal to increase the pay for junior enlisted troops.

Financial Services and General Government 

The Financial Services and General Government bill — which funds the U.S. Treasury Department, Executive Office of the President, judiciary and more than two dozen smaller programs — would receive $26.1 billion in funding. That’s about $1.1 billion below the current funding levels for those programs.

Senate FSGG Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, said in a written statement the “bipartisan legislation invests in these critical priorities for our nation and more — including providing key resources to tackle the opioid epidemic and the necessary funding to build the new FBI headquarters in Greenbelt, Maryland.”

“Building an economy that works for everyday Americans requires supporting our small businesses and community-based lenders, protecting consumers, building out our broadband infrastructure, and ensuring the security of our financial system,” Van Hollen said.

The Department of Treasury would receive $14.2 billion, a $22.9 million reduction to its current funding levels. Of that total funding level, $12.3 billion would go to the Internal Revenue Service, equal to its current funding, and $158 million would go toward the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, according to a bill summary from House Democrats.

The Judiciary would get more than $8.6 billion to operate the U.S. courts, including the District Courts, Courts of Appeals and other judicial services. That funding level is an increase of nearly $170 million.

It provides $129 million for salaries and expenses of the U.S. Supreme Court and $20 million to care for the building and its grounds, according to the joint explanatory statement.

The bill includes $791 million in funding for the District of Columbia, a decrease of $1 million. That includes $40 million in residential tuition support, $30 million in emergency and security costs, $8 million in upgrades to sewer and water treatment and $4 million in HIV/AIDS testing and treatment, according to a bill summary from House Democrats.

The Executive Office of the President would receive about $872.5 million — a $6 million decrease from the 2023 fiscal level, according to a bill summary from Democrats.

That includes $114 million for the Office of Administration, $19 million for the National Security Council, $22 million for the Office of National Cyber Director and $457 million for the National Drug Control Policy.

The bill would provide the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission with about $151 million in funding, a decrease of $1.5 million. The bill bars CPSC from issuing a ban on gas stoves, “which would reduce consumer choice,” according to a House GOP bill summary.

That policy provision would prohibit CPSC from “promulgating, implementing, administering, or enforcing any regulation to ban gas stoves as a class of products,” according to the explanatory statement.

CPSC has not made any regulatory action to ban gas stoves. Agency officials have expressed concern about indoor air quality of gas stoves and the agency is researching the impacts on human health of those indoor gas emissions.

The Election Assistance Commission would receive a cut of $280,000 in funding for a total level of $27.7 million.

A total of $55 million from that allocation would go toward Election Security Grants “to make payments to states for activities to improve the administration of elections for Federal office, including to enhance election technology and make election security improvements,” according to the explanatory statement.

Homeland Security 

Congress plans to spend $62 billion on the Department of Homeland Security, including upgrading technology to screen for narcotics like fentanyl at U.S. ports of entry and an additional $495 million in funding to hire 22,000 border patrol agents.

The bill provides U.S. Customs and Border Protection with $19 billion, a $3 billion increase above current levels, and more than $9.6 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, an increase of $1.1 billion.

It puts in place policy requirements for detention centers, such as barring contracts with private companies that do not meet inspection standards, and providing an additional $3 million to expand the use of ICE body cameras, according to the explanatory statement. 

The legislation would require the Department of Homeland Security to publish data on the 15th of every month on the total detention capacity and the number of “got aways” and people “turned back” at the southern border, according to the joint explanatory statement.

DHS refers to people as “got aways” when an individual is observed making an unauthorized entry into the U.S. and is not turned away, or apprehended. That data is not publicly available.

The Office of the Secretary and Executive Management would get $404 million, an increase of about $20 million. About $30 million of that funding would go “to support the safe reunification of families who were unjustly separated at the U.S.-Mexico border by the Trump Administration,” according to House Democrats’ summary of the bill.

The bill provides $5.1 billion for Enforcement and Removal Operations, an increase of $900 million above current funding. Of that, $355 million would go toward 41,500 detention beds.

The bill would appropriate $11.8 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard, a $122.7 million boost; $10.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, an increase of $1.2 billion; and $25.3 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a funding cut of $72.9 million.

The FEMA funding would go toward several projects, with $20 billion of those funds for disaster relief.

Labor-HHS-Education 

The bill would appropriate $13.7 billion for the Labor Department, $145 million less than current funding levels and $79 billion for the Education Department, a cut of $500 million, according to the House GOP summary.

The Health and Human Services Department would get $116.8 billion, or about $3.9 billion less than the $120.7 billion provided during the last fiscal year. The House Democrats’ summary of the bill, however, says that when earmarks are factored into the total spending level, HHS would get a $955 million increase.

Senate Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee Chair Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, said in a written statement the bill “helps take on the fentanyl and opioid crisis, expand access to affordable child care, invest in critical mental health and affordable health care programs, and connect Americans with the education and workforce training they need to land good-paying jobs.”

Funding for HHS would go to numerous health programs, including a $300 million increase to the National Institutes of Health for a total spending level of $48.6 billion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would get $9.2 billion, more than $4.5 million above its current funding level.

Title X family planning grants would get $286 million in funding, the same amount they currently receive, despite House Republicans proposing to completely eliminate the program.

The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, a central component of the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the mpox outbreak, would get $3.6 billion, a $5 million increase.

Of that total spending level, $1 billion would go toward the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and $980 million would go to the Strategic National Stockpile. That represents an increase of $65 million and $15 million, respectively.

The bill includes a $1 billion increase in funding for child care and early learning programs within HHS, according to Senate Democrats’ summary of the legislation.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant would see a $725 million, 9%, increase in funding compared to current levels, for a total appropriation of $8.8 billion. Another $12.27 billion would go toward Head Start programs, a boost of $275 million over the current level.

“Sustained annual increases to our federal investments in child care and Head Start are critical in tackling the child care crisis and helping to ensure more families can find and afford the quality, affordable child care and early childhood education options they need,” Senate Democrats’ summary says. “With the new investments provided in this bill, annual discretionary funding for CCDBG and Head Start over the last three fiscal years has increased by $4.4 billion.”

The Education Department’s spending would go to numerous initiatives, including $24.6 billion for student financial aid programs.

Pell Grants, which go to about 7 million lower-income college students, would continue to have a maximum award of $7,395 during the 2024-2025 academic year. The Federal Work Study program for college students would also get equal funding at $1.2 billion.

The Labor-HHS-Education bill continues to include the so-called Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding from being used for abortions with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant person.

The decades-old provision, first added in the 1970s in a slightly different form, affects patients in federal health care programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

Similar provisions on abortion access exist throughout many of the other government funding bills.

Legislative Branch

The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill includes $6.75 billion for operations in the Capitol, including funding related to the summer’s party conventions and the presidential inauguration in January 2025.

The bill would boost funding for the U.S. Capitol Police to $792 million, a 7.8% increase from fiscal 2023.

The measure includes funding for retention and recruitment programs of Capitol Police officers, including student loan payments and tuition reimbursements. Capitol Police officers, the force responsible for security at the Capitol complex, reported lower morale in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“This is an essential investment in democracy and oversight that bolsters the legislative branch’s capacity to better serve the public,” said Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who chairs the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. “This bill delivers the funding and infrastructure required for the U.S. Capitol Police to safeguard the Capitol complex and keep it accessible to the public.”

A joint explanatory statement accompanying the bill says the measure would allow $2 million for Capitol Police to protect members of Congress outside the Capitol complex but within the Washington, D.C., region. Members have experienced increased threats in recent years.

The measure also includes funding for quadrennial events related to the presidential election.

Capitol Police would receive $3.2 million for overtime to support the national political conventions — Republicans’ in Milwaukee and Democrats’ in Chicago — over the summer and to prepare for the inauguration in January.

Inauguration Day is in the next fiscal year, which begins in October, but expenses associated with preparing for it could be incurred this year. The bill would allocate nearly $3.7 million for salaries and expenses associated with the inauguration.

The bill would provide $16.6 million for Capitol grounds, House and Senate offices and the Capitol Power Plant.

The measure includes a provision that would claw back unspent funds from members’ Representational Allowances, the accounts that reimburse senators and representatives for official expenses. Unspent funds from those accounts would be used to pay down the national debt.

The measure includes a longstanding policy freezing members’ pay.

State-Foreign Operations 

Congress plans to allocate just over $58.3 billion for the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development and other related programs, including refugee emergency assistance and diplomatic activities.

Republican lawmakers are touting an overall cut to the bill — down from last year’s $59.7 billion total.

The bill includes $11.8 billion for the U.S. State Department and USAID and $10.3 billion for international development, including a loan to the International Monetary Fund to provide economic relief for some of the world’s poorest nations.

The bill allocates $10 billion for global health initiatives that focus on combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, as well as providing vaccination programs for children.

Of that health funding, Democrats cheered that the bill “protects longstanding funding,” as highlighted by Murray’s office, for family planning and reproductive health services in poor nations around the globe, for which nearly $524 million is allocated, remaining at the same level as the current spending level.

Funding appropriated to the president for multilateral assistance to international organizations and programs — ranging from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to programs for victims of torture — is set to drop to $436.9 million from last year’s funding level of $508.6 million.

That reduction, in part, reflects current political tension over the Israel-Hamas war.

Absent from the bill are funds to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, a primary humanitarian organization in the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West bank territories. Many Western nations cut UNRWA funding after Israel accused 13 of its employees of taking part in the Oct. 7 attacks and many more of sympathizing with Hamas and other militant groups. The agency received $75 million from the U.S. in fiscal year 2023.

Another notable absence from the bill is funding for the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, which received $17.5 million from the U.S. in last year’s funding bill.

Republicans celebrated the elimination of funding for the agency’s inquiry into human rights abuses in Palestinian territories, which the UN Human Rights Council opened after a flare up of violence in May 2021. The inquiry began to collect evidence of war crimes “committed by all sides” shortly after Hamas attacked southern Israel on Oct. 7, killing some 1,200 and taking roughly 240 hostages.

The bill will meet the annual U.S. $3.3 billion commitment to Israel this year among the $8.9 billion in security assistance to foreign governments.

The funding roadmap for U.S. international activities extends several programs, notably authorizing an additional 12,000 Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans who assisted the U.S. during its war in Afghanistan.

A rioter holds a Trump flag inside the US Capitol Building near the Senate Chamber on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

Former President Donald Trump renewed his call to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to dismiss charges against him, asserting that presidents enjoy near-total immunity from criminal prosecution.

In addition, as a deadline loomed for briefs in the case, 18 Republican-led states filed an amicus brief Tuesday urging the Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts and grant Trump blanket immunity. Oral arguments before the high court on the immunity question are scheduled for April 25, and federal district court proceedings have been halted until the Supreme Court issues a ruling.

Trump’s lawyers, led by D. John Sauer of St. Louis, in a 52-page brief argued that a strong executive with virtually no criminal liability from the judicial system was intended by the framers of the Constitution and part of a “234-year unbroken tradition” of not prosecuting presidents for action taken while in office.

The justices should weigh that tradition and dismiss the federal charges accusing Trump — now the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party — of conspiring to overturn his reelection loss in 2020, they wrote.

U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith oversaw an investigation into Trump that led to the criminal charges that the president spearheaded a multipart conspiracy trying to avoid leaving office.

But Trump’s attorneys have argued that those charges should be dismissed under a doctrine of “absolute presidential immunity,” which they said presidents must have to properly exercise their powers.

“The President cannot function, and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office,” the attorneys wrote in the brief’s opening paragraph.

That view is in line with how framers of the Constitution saw the presidency, they said.

“Even if some level of Presidential malfeasance, not present in this case at all, were to escape punishment, that risk is inherent in the Constitution’s design,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

“The Founders viewed protecting the independence of the Presidency as well worth the risk that some Presidents might evade punishment in marginal cases. They were unwilling to burn the Presidency itself to the ground to get at every single alleged malefactor.”

Impeachment

The only exception to absolute immunity is a president who is impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate, Trump’s lawyers said.

Trump was twice impeached by the House while in office, but acquitted in two Senate trials that required a two-thirds vote for conviction. A majority of senators — with seven Republicans joining all Democrats — voted to convict him in 2021 on charges similar to those he faces in criminal court related to his efforts to subvert the 2020 election results.

Trump’s lawyers argued, as they have in previous filings, that federal courts should never be able to review the conduct of presidents who haven’t been convicted in an impeachment trial.

They asked the court to reject an argument that another exception to presidential immunity could be made for criminal charges stemming from a president’s desire to stay in power.

“Because virtually all first-term Presidents’ official actions carry some, at least partial, motivation to be re-elected, this exception to immunity would swiftly engulf the rule,” they wrote.

Prosecuting or not prosecuting a president is inherently a political act, Trump’s attorneys said.

“This observation applies to former Presidents as well — and it applies most of all to a former President who is the leading candidate to replace the incumbent who is prosecuting him,” they wrote.

Trump has amassed enough delegates to win his party’s nomination and  face President Joe Biden in a fall rematch of the 2020 election.

A Feb. 6 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a lower court’s ruling against Trump noted that the charges allege criminal action that emanated from an effort to unlawfully retain the presidency.

Trump appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

Red states line up behind Trump

Attorneys general from Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia signed a brief to the court filed Tuesday, accusing the government’s timing of the 2020 election interference case as politically motivated.

“After waiting 30 months to indict President Trump, the Special Counsel has demanded extreme expedition from every court at every stage of the case. His only stated reason, the ‘public interest,’ is so thin it’s almost transparent,” the attorneys general wrote.

In the 54-page amicus brief, the state officials allege that the prosecution’s “failure to explain its extraordinary haste suggests one troubling answer: That the timing of the prosecution is designed to inflict maximum damage on President Biden’s political opponent before the November 2024 election.”

The attorneys general argued that the threat of liability could distort a president’s decision-making and lead to a worse job performance, citing several cases, including 1997’s Clinton v. Jones.

The attorneys general, led by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, further accuse the lower courts of “mistreatment” of concerns over opening the proverbial “floodgates” for future partisan prosecutions. Marshall has taken a lead role in advancing a string of legal arguments surrounding election rules likely to boost Trump.

“The court below also underestimated the risk of ‘a torrent of politically motivated prosecutions’ on the ground that ‘this is the first time since the Founding that a former President has been federally indicted,’” the attorneys general wrote, citing the appeals court.

“Glaringly absent is the fact this case is the second of two federal prosecutions against President Trump, who also faces two state prosecutions. How can the ‘risk’ possibly ‘appear slight’?”

The state officials pointed to state and civil cases against Trump in Georgia and New York as evidence that the 2020 election interference case “is not the only one to raise concerns of partisanship.”

Another view, from Ohio, Alaska and Wyoming

Another brief, signed by only three Republican attorneys general, called on the court to assert a more complex legal standard that would still provide broad immunity on a sliding scale.

The three Republican attorneys general told the U.S. Supreme Court that the justices should take a broad view of presidential immunity when the court hears Trump’s attempt to dismiss criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost led a brief to the court that was also signed by Alaska Attorney General Treg R. Taylor and Wyoming Attorney General Bridget Hill. The Republicans argued not for absolute immunity, but a two-part test that would still allow for broad immunity.

Arguing more about legal theory than the specifics of Trump’s case, Yost, Taylor and Hill said the judiciary must balance the need for a president to exercise wide discretion in executing the office’s powers with the need for accountability of a rogue executive.

“Very broad, but not limitless, presidential immunity is dictated by our constitutional structure,” they wrote.

The three attorneys general proposed a two-part test to settle a claim of presidential immunity.

First, the courts should determine how closely the alleged acts are tied to the president’s core constitutional duty, they said. As an example, they said presidents should be given more latitude in conducting foreign affairs than in investigating a political rival because conducting foreign affairs is a central constitutional duty.

Courts should also determine the “urgency of the situation surrounding” alleged crimes by a president, they said. For example, a president seizing property of political opponents should be considered differently than a president seizing property during a war.

The attorneys general did not say how courts should decide Trump’s case, suggesting instead the Supreme Court simply announce that it is adopting the two-part test and leave the trial court responsible for determining how to apply it to the facts of the case.

A Supreme Court-sanctioned test would help the trial court conduct unprecedented proceedings and could also give the public confidence that the trial was nonpolitical, they said.

Other arguments

Several other interested parties submitted briefs Tuesday, the last day for so-called friend-of-the-court briefs in Trump’s case before the high court.

Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, led by Montana’s Steve Daines, wrote that the court should adopt the absolute immunity standard, worrying that a decision otherwise would create a cycle of political prosecutions for every future president.

“The D.C. Circuit opinion is akin to a loaded gun lying on the table that future prosecutors can now wield against Presidents (and former Presidents) of all political persuasions,” the NRSC wrote. “The D.C. Circuit seems to believe that partisan actors will be able to resist the temptation to use that weapon against their political enemies; anyone who pays the slightest attention to American politics knows better.”

Mark Meadows, Trump’s White House chief of staff during the 2020 election and his subsequent efforts to overturn the results, also wrote to the court to ask that a decision in the case reinforce the legal principle giving lower federal officials immunity from state prosecution.

Meadows, a former U.S. House member from North Carolina, is among Trump’s co-defendants on state charges in Georgia related to the effort to overturn the 2020 election.

Former special counsel Robert K. Hur prepares to testify to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, March 12, 2024, in Washington, DC. Hur investigated President Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents and published a final report with contentious conclusions about Biden’s memory. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

Former U.S. Justice Department special counsel Robert Hur on Tuesday defended from both Republican and Democratic critics on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee his conclusion that President Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents likely broke federal law but was not worthy of prosecution.

Few new facts emerged from the acrimonious five-hour hearing. But Hur’s conclusions gave members of the panel ammunition to promote their party’s presumptive presidential nominee and criticize the other, while also giving each side things to complain about.

Biden knowingly took classified papers in the waning days of his vice presidency and read classified material to a ghostwriter, Hur said. But, Hur concluded, a prosecution would likely not yield a conviction and he therefore opted not to recommend charges.

“We identified evidence that the president willfully retained classified materials after the end of his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” Hur said.

“We did not, however, identify evidence that rose to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the evidence fell short of that standard, I declined to recommend criminal charges against Mr. Biden.”

Hur takes issue with Biden rebuttal

Biden’s public response to Hur’s report contained inaccuracies, Hur said.

In a hastily organized press conference the day Hur published his report, Biden said he never shared classified material with his ghostwriter and that all the material in question was either locked away or in areas that could have been locked.

Hur said those descriptions were “inconsistent with the findings of our investigation.”

​​Prosecutors discovered an audio recording of Biden telling his ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer, that he had “found all the classified stuff downstairs,” Hur said. They also discovered that Zwonitzer attempted to delete computer files once Hur was named as special counsel.

Hur defended his finding that a potential jury may have declined to convict Biden of a serious felony because he presents as “an elderly man with a poor memory.”

Biden strongly objected to the characterization, and many of the president’s supporters considered it an unfair criticism from a registered Republican that was extraneous to the investigation.

But Hur said Tuesday it was Biden who raised the issue of his memory.

“We interviewed the president and asked him about his recorded statement ‘Well, I just found all the classified stuff downstairs,’” Hur said. “He told us that he didn’t remember saying that to his ghostwriter. He also said he didn’t remember finding any classified material in his home after his vice presidency. And he didn’t remember anything about how classified documents about Afghanistan made their way into his garage.

“My assessment in the report about the relevance of the president’s memory was necessary and accurate and fair.”

Hur said from the hearing’s outset he was appearing solely to clarify information contained in his report and would decline to expand on any questions beyond the report’s scope.

But committee members seemed less interested in examining the report’s details than in making partisan appeals highlighting sections of the report that could support their party’s candidate for president — Democrats for Biden and Republicans for former President Donald Trump — while finding elements of Hur’s conclusion or process to criticize.

Hur testified as a private citizen no longer associated with the Justice Department after he resigned from the department Monday.

Republicans see double standard

Several Republicans on the panel noted Hur’s finding that Biden knowingly took classified documents at the end of his vice presidency, held them in unsecured areas and shared them with a ghostwriter.

“Joe Biden kept classified information,” Chairman Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said. “Joe Biden failed to properly secure classified information. Joe Biden shared classified information with people he wasn’t supposed to. Joe Biden broke the law. But because he’s a forgetful old man who would appear sympathetic to a jury, Mr. Hur chose not to bring charges.”

Biden received an $8 million advance for a memoir of his vice presidency, Jordan said, citing Hur’s report. Biden used classified materials to inform the book and shared them directly with the ghostwriter, Jordan said.

“He had 8 million reasons” to take classified documents, Jordan said. Doing so put national security at risk, he added.

Republicans also claimed a double standard occurred when Hur declined to prosecute Biden after the U.S. Department of Justice opted to prosecute former President Donald Trump on similar charges.

The Trump case, one of four felony prosecutions the former president faces even as his general election campaign against Biden approaches, accuses Trump of keeping classified documents unsecured at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

“Donald Trump’s being prosecuted for exactly the same act that Joe Biden committed,” Rep. Tom McClintock, a Republican of California, told Hur.

A separate special counsel, Jack Smith, oversaw the investigation into Trump. Hur declined to answer questions from Republicans about Smith’s decision to recommend charges against Trump.

Trump has made central to his campaign the idea that political and governmental elites — the so-called deep state that includes the Justice Department — are unfairly targeting him.

He renewed that theme Tuesday in a post about the hearing to his social media site, Truth Social.

“Big day in Congress for the Biden Documents Hoax,” Trump wrote. “He had many times more documents, including classified documents, than I, or any other president, had. He had them all over the place, with ZERO supervision or security. …The DOJ gave Biden, and virtually every other person and President, a free pass. Me, I’m still fighting!!!”

Democrats embrace Trump comparison

Democrats appeared happy to contrast Biden and Trump’s approaches to being investigated.

Hur’s report noted that Biden cooperated with an investigation, authorizing searches of his homes and voluntarily sitting for an interview with prosecutors.

Trump, on the other hand, refused repeated chances to avoid prosecution by returning missing classified material.

Trump is also accused of lying about what documents he still had, Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin said.

The federal indictment against Trump also accused him of obstructing the investigation by hiding documents and destroying incriminating video evidence. And unlike Biden, Trump did not agree to sit for an interview with prosecutors.

“This report is so damning in the contrast between Biden and Trump, it is hard for me to see why our (Republican) colleagues think that this hearing advances their flailing and embarrassing quest to impeach the president of the United States,” Raskin said.

“What America sees today is evidence of one president who believes in the rule of law and works to protect it, and one who has nothing but contempt for the rule of law and acts solely in pursuit of his own constantly multiplying corrupt schemes.”

Several Democrats also said that Biden’s performance at the State of the Union last week should dispel any concerns that the octogenarian’s age is holding him back.

Most important, Democrats said, was the first sentence of Hur’s report that found “no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.”

“President Biden probably committed a verbal slip or two during the interview,” House Judiciary ranking Democrat Jerry Nadler of New York said. “I’m not sure any of that matters, because when the interview was over, Mr. Hur completely exonerated President Biden.”

(Getty Images)

President Joe Biden’s budget request for fiscal 2025 would continue several administration goals to lower costs for most families while raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, spend on climate initiatives and provide aid to U.S. partners abroad.

The $7.266 trillion budget request that calls for expanding the child tax credit, funding overseas partners and increasing taxes on the wealthy proposes several new or revamped programs. It will be up to Congress in the coming months to act on or reject Biden’s initiatives.

Here are five main takeaways from a fact sheet accompanying the budget:

Household costs

The budget calls for several policy changes and increases to social programs meant to bring down costs for most households.

Some of those provisions include:

• Low-cost child care: The budget request proposes a new program to allow families that earn less than $200,000 guaranteed access to low-cost child care from birth to kindergarten. Consumer costs for the program would be on a sliding scale, with the families with the lowest incomes paying close to nothing.

The program would be available to more than 16 million children, with another 2 million served by increased funding for Child Care and Development Block Grants.

• Expanded child tax credit: The request calls for restoring the child tax credit to the temporary level Congress set during the pandemic. The change would make 18 million low-income families eligible for a full tax credit, according to a White House fact sheet.

• Housing: The budget would provide $258 billion to build or preserve more than 2 million housing units.

The plan allocates $1.3 billion for the Home Investment Partnerships Program, a state and local block grant program to construct and rehabilitate affordable housing.

The budget also calls for creating a new tax credit for first-time homebuyers and sellers. The $10,000 credit could be used by “middle-class families” buying their first home or selling their starter home.

• College costs: The budget includes $12 billion “that will fund strategies to lower college costs for students,” according to the fact sheet.

• Health care: The budget calls for increasing the pace of implementation for an Inflation Reduction Act provision to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Democrats’ 2022 taxes, climate and policy law set a timeline for the federal government to negotiate prices of certain drugs. The budget proposal would speed up that timeline.

The same law capped the price of insulin at $35 per month for people on Medicare. During consideration of that law in August 2022, Republicans stripped a provision that would require the commercial market to use the same cap. Monday’s budget request calls for placing a cap on insulin obtained in the private sector.

The budget would also provide “Medicaid-like coverage” to people in states that have not adopted Medicaid expansion. It would also provide states that did expand Medicaid financial incentives to maintain those expansions.

Taxes

The budget seeks to lower the federal deficit, primarily by increasing taxes on the wealthy and some corporations. The proposed changes would make “the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share,” the fact sheet said.

• Reduce 2017 corporate tax cut: The budget calls for raising the corporate tax rate to 28%, splitting the difference between the 21% rate set in the 2017 tax law a Republican Congress passed during President Donald Trump’s term and the 35% rate that existed before that law.

• Raise the corporate minimum tax: The budget would also increase the corporate minimum tax included in the Inflation Reduction Act from 15% to 21%.

• “Billionaire” tax: The budget would seek to override loopholes and other tax provisions that allow the extremely wealthy to pay a lower effective tax rate than many working-class taxpayers by establishing a 25% minimum tax rate on people with wealth of more than $100 million.

Safety net

The budget includes a few provisions meant to strengthen the social safety net and provide protections for families.

• Expanded family and medical leave: The budget would establish a 12-week minimum for eligible workers to take paid time off after the birth of a child, to care for a family member, recover from their own medical issue, adapt to a family member’s military deployment or “find safety from domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.”

• Sick leave: The budget also proposes requiring seven days of paid sick leave for all employees.

• WIC: The proposal would “fully fund” the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, with $7.7 billion going toward the program. Secretary Tom Vilsack and others have warned for months that eligible families are at risk of losing access to WIC if funding is not increased. The proposed funding level would allow the program to grow from 6.2 million individuals in 2021 to 7 million.

• Homelessness: The budget includes $4.1 billion for Homeless Assistance Grants to support about 1.2 million people experiencing homelessness.

Climate

Monday’s budget request includes new and continued funding to maintain a focus on climate initiatives.

• Expand climate corps: The budget calls for expanding the American Climate Corps program that launched last year with 20,000 workers. Under the proposal, funding for the program would be made mandatory and the corps would expand to 50,000 workers by 2031.

• Clean energy: The proposal calls for $1.6 billion for Department of Energy programs supporting renewable energy projects across the country. The funding would go toward retrofitting homes, manufacturing renewable energy components and supporting a more secure and reliable electric grid.

• Climate resilience: The budget includes $23 billion for climate adaptation and resilience meant to address the increasingly severe droughts, floods, wildfires and other disasters associated with climate change.

Repeat supplemental request

After Republicans in the U.S. House rebuffed the administration’s October request for supplemental funding for Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific regional partners and the U.S.-Mexico border, Biden included items from that request in Monday’s full-year budget request.

“The Budget includes, and therefore reiterates the need for, the unmet needs from the October supplemental request,” the fact sheet reads.

The renewed request includes:

• $92 billion in foreign aid for Ukraine, Israel and Indo-Pacific partners such as Taiwan.

The funding for Israel, which is at war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip after a terrorist attack in October, also includes humanitarian aid for Palestinian civilians. The administration has come under increasing pressure from progressive Democrats to withhold military funding for Israel as civilian casualties mount in Gaza and basic supplies continue to be scarce.

• The budget also repeats a request for $13.6 billion for border and migration programs to provide 1,600 new asylum officers, 1,300 new Border Patrol agents and 1,000 additional Customs and Border Protection officers.

Signage for voters looking to vote in-person at the Wellington E. Webb Municipal Office Building on Super Tuesday, March 5, 2024, in Denver, Colorado. (Marc Piscotty/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Despite facing 91 felony counts, hefty civil penalties and a packed 2024 legal calendar, Donald Trump emerged on Super Tuesday as the Republican Party’s presumptive choice as its presidential candidate in November.

The former president has secured 995 of the necessary 1,215 GOP delegates needed to clinch the GOP nomination, and likely will meet that number in primaries later this month.

Super Tuesday’s contests did the same for President Joe Biden, delivering to him 1,497 of the 1,968 Democratic delegates needed for his party’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention in August.

Trump’s lone challenger dropped from the Republican U.S. presidential nomination race Wednesday after the former president’s overwhelming victories in more than a dozen Super Tuesday states.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley suspended her bid without endorsing the party front-runner, saying “It is now up to Donald Trump to earn the votes of those in our party and beyond it who did not support him, and I hope he does that.”

“At its best, politics is about bringing people into your cause, not turning them away,” Haley continued in a speech from Charleston, South Carolina. “And our conservative cause badly needs more people. This is now his time for choosing.”

On top of that, Trump at last earned the endorsement of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, according to news reports.

Despite the overwhelming performances, neither front-runner produced a clean sweep Tuesday, as Haley holdouts in Vermont and a tiny ripple of Biden opposition in American Samoa as well as an “uncommitted” vote in Minnesota revealed vulnerabilities.

Haley’s exit from her long-shot campaign all but cements what voters have expected: A November rematch between Biden and Trump, whose loss in 2020 sparked a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Trump faces four federal criminal charges for attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election results, a case stalled by his legal appeals for complete immunity from criminal prosecution — a matter that will be decided in the coming months by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court ruled Monday in another legal tangle involving Trump. The justices unanimously decided Trump could remain on Colorado’s Republican primary ballot after that state’s Supreme Court removed him based on a Civil War-era constitutional clause barring insurrectionists from holding future office.

Trump targets Biden

In a dark victory speech Tuesday night from his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, Trump focused on Biden, whom he called “the worst president in the history of our country.” Trump blamed inflation and an immigration surge on Biden.

Trump maintained that he was the victim of election fraud — a claim that has been widely debunked — and unfair targeting by the Justice Department under Biden.

“In some ways, we’re a third-world country,” he said Tuesday. “We’re a third-world country at our borders and we’re a third-world country at our elections. And we need to stop that.”

Trump has consistently claimed his efforts that led to the Jan. 6 attack were meant to counter fraudulent election results, but has shown no evidence of determinative voter fraud. Courts dismissed dozens of claims he brought following his reelection loss in 2020.

‘Uncommitted’ votes

On the Democratic side, as predicted, Biden also finished Super Tuesday as the clear Democratic choice in more than a dozen states.

However, neither Biden nor Trump cleanly swept their parties’ primaries and caucuses throughout 16 states and one U.S. territory.

The contests were held in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia. Biden also won Iowa’s Democratic mail-in vote Tuesday.

While both men picked up hundreds of party delegates during the single largest day of nominating contests on the 2024 race calendar, Haley squeezed out a win in Vermont, picking up nine delegates, according to The Associated Press delegate tracker.

On the Democratic side, Biden lost a handful of delegates in Minnesota to voters who chose “uncommitted,” apparently as a protest of the administration’s stance on Israel’s continuing bombardment of the Gaza Strip. As of Wednesday morning, nearly 19% of voters in the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party primary, the state’s Democratic Party, had chosen “uncommitted.”

Biden split delegates with politically unknown entrepreneur Jason Palmer who defeated the incumbent in a small contest on the U.S. territory of American Samoa.

McConnell endorses Trump; Haley holds out

After Tuesday’s results made clear Trump would be the Republican nominee, Kentucky’s McConnell, the most high-profile GOP official to withhold support from Trump, issued an endorsement.

“It is abundantly clear that former President Trump has earned the requisite support of Republican voters to be our nominee for President of the United States. It should come as no surprise that as nominee, he will have my support,” McConnell said in a statement first reported by Politico.

Haley did not immediately endorse Trump after a primary race that became increasingly bitter as the field winnowed.

Trump did not mention Haley’s name in a Tuesday night victory speech and it was Biden who made the first appeal to her voters in a campaign statement Wednesday.

“Donald Trump made it clear he doesn’t want Nikki Haley’s supporters,” Biden said in the statement. “I want to be clear: There is a place for them in my campaign.”

Biden said Haley supporters may not agree with him on many issues but could find common ground on “preserving American democracy, on standing up for the rule of law, on treating each other with decency and dignity and respect, on preserving NATO and standing up to America’s adversaries.”

Delegate count mounting

Biden and Trump have not yet mathematically clinched party nominations, but the symbolic victories are expected by month’s end.

At the time that Haley called off her campaign Wednesday morning, she had garnered 89 delegates, according to the latest AP count.

Looking ahead, nine Republican delegates are up for grabs in American Samoa on Thursday, and GOP nominating contests on March 12 in Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi and Washington carry a total combined award of 161 delegates.

Democrats in Hawaii go to the polls Thursday, where Biden could gain a possible 22 delegates.

On March 12 Biden’s party offers up another 235 delegates in contests in Georgia, Mississippi and Washington.

The next two largest delegate hauls for both Biden and Trump come on March 19 when a total 350 Republican delegates are available in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Kansas and Ohio, and 379 Democratic Party delegates are up for grabs in those same states, except Florida which will not hold a Democratic nominating contest this year.

Down ballot results

The struggle for control of Congress also gained more clarity in primary results.

In a marquee U.S. Senate race, Democratic U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff and Republican former professional baseball player Steve Garvey advanced to the general election for a California U.S. Senate seat.

Garvey edged out two other Democratic House members, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee, to clear the state’s “jungle primary,” where candidates of all parties run in a single race and the top two members face off in a general election.

Sen. Laphonza Butler, a Democrat, has held the seat since longtime Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s death last year. Butler did not seek reelection.

In Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz easily secured renomination on the Republican side, while nearly 60% of Democratic voters chose U.S. Rep. Colin Allred to face Cruz in the fall.

Neither race is expected to change the makeup of the Senate, with Schiff considered a near-lock to win in November and Cruz only slightly less favored in his race, according to analysis from Inside Elections.

In a closely watched race in Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District, former U.S. Department of Justice official Shomari Figures and state House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels advanced to a runoff for the Democratic nomination.

The Republican runoff will be between former state Sen. Dick Brewbaker of Pike Road and attorney Caroleene Dobson.

The district, which federal courts redrew after state lawmakers ignored a court order to create a second majority-Black district, is expected to favor Democrats in November, possibly affecting the balance of power in the House.

he U.S. House and Senate are expected to take broadly bipartisan votes to send a massive spending package known as a “minibus” to President Joe Biden ahead of a Friday midnight deadline (Getty Images Plus).

WASHINGTON — Congress is on track to approve a staggering $468 billion in government spending this week, finishing part of the work it was supposed to complete by Oct. 1 — including a big boost intended to shore up the federal WIC nutrition program for women, infants and children.

Other agencies will see cuts, including the FBI and the National Park Service, as Democrats and Republicans haggled over winners and losers in the annual spending process. There are spending increases for items such as wildland fire management, first-time-ever federal oversight of cosmetics and emergency rental assistance for low-income families.

Surviving: Plenty of earmarks for lawmakers’ local projects, also referred to as congressionally directed spending or community project funding, which received $12.655 billion in spending for the 6,630 projects within the six spending bills combined into one package, according to two people familiar with the total.

For example, in the bill that provides funds for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, that includes everything from $3 million for the Integrative Precision Agriculture Laboratory at the University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. to $800,000 for Livingston Parish Courthouse Renovations in Louisiana to $3.3 million for the Pinetop Wildland Fire Response Station in Arizona.

The U.S. House and Senate are expected to take broadly bipartisan votes to send the package known as a “minibus” to President Joe Biden ahead of a Friday midnight deadline.

However, agreement on six other consequential appropriations bills, which are due by March 22 and include health, defense and homeland security programs, remains elusive.

Dems tout WIC funding

The first batch of government funding bills brokered by the divided Congress includes the Agriculture-FDA, Commerce-Justice-Science, Energy-Water, Interior-Environment, Military Construction-VA and Transportation-HUD measures.

Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said in a statement released Sunday that she and other Democratic lawmakers “fought hard to protect investments that matter to working people everywhere and help keep our economy strong—rejecting devastating cuts to housing, nutrition assistance, and more.”

“Forcing states to pick and choose which moms and kids will be able to access essential WIC benefits was never an acceptable outcome to Democrats, and this bill ensures that won’t happen by fully funding WIC for millions of families nationwide,” Murray said, referring to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, which provides grants to states and had faced a shortfall.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, ranking member on the panel, said in a written statement the “bills will make a real difference in communities throughout the United States.”

“Members of the Appropriations Committee in both chambers have worked very hard to reach agreements on the bill text unveiled today,” Collins said. “I look forward to working with Chair Murray and our colleagues to bring this legislation to the Senate floor for a vote without any further delay.”

House Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, said the bills “achieve what we set out to do: strategically increase defense spending and make targeted cuts to wasteful non-defense programs.”

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement the bipartisan bills “help keep communities safe and healthy.”

“I am grateful that each of these bills rejects many of the extreme cuts and policies proposed by House Republicans and protects the great strides we made over the last two years to reverse the underinvestment in domestic programs that Americans depend on,” DeLauro said. “I urge swift passage of this package and look forward to releasing the remaining 2024 funding bills.”

Agency cuts

The bills would cut funding from several federal agencies, including a $977 million reduction to the Environmental Protection Agency; a $654 million cut for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; a $150 million reduction to the National Park Service; and a $122 million cut to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction projects are among the programs that would see an increase in their funding.

Congress, after approving these six bills this week, must finalize bipartisan agreement on the remaining six.

Those bills include Defense, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor-HHS-Education, Legislative Branch and State-Foreign Operations. They are typically harder to negotiate than the bills in this week’s minibus.

Congress would likely start on the fiscal 2025 process shortly after approving all dozen annual appropriations bills, given that Biden is expected to send lawmakers his next request, for fiscal 2025, on March 11.

Here’s a breakdown of what’s funded in each of the bills that Congress will vote on this week.

Agriculture-FDA 

The Agriculture-FDA funding bill would provide $26.2 billion in discretionary spending for the agencies and programs within the legislation, including conservation and rural development. That represents a $383 million increase above current funding levels.

The USDA would receive $22.3 billion, which would be about $383 million more than current law. That discretionary funding would go toward several programs, including the Agricultural Research Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Foreign Agricultural Service.

The FDA would receive $3.5 billion in discretionary funding, including “$7 million to conduct oversight of cosmetics for the first time ever and $1.5 million to reduce animal testing through alternative methods,” according to a summary of the bill released by Senate Democrats.

The Agriculture-FDA measure includes significant mandatory spending as well, which is counted outside the discretionary spending caps the Biden administration and House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, agreed to in January.

Mandatory spending is required by laws that Congress has already approved. It makes up the largest component of federal expenditures and is often spent outside of the annual appropriations process, though some mandatory spending accounts are reported in the bills.

Discretionary accounts make up about one-third of federal spending and are what’s subject to the spending caps on the dozen annual appropriations bills.

The Agriculture-FDA bill would approve $7 billion for the Women, Infants and Children program, an increase of more than $1 billion compared to its current funding level.

The increase would “fully fund” the WIC program, which includes more than 7 million people, according to subcommittee Chairman Martin Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, who said in a statement he was “focused on delivering for American families, farmers and producers, and rural communities.”

“This bill gets that done, even while we had to make some tough decisions to get there,” Heinrich said. “I am especially proud that we stood firm to fully fund WIC and the other programs that will help put food on the table for America’s kids.”

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which provides grocery benefits to low-income families, would get $122.4 billion, a $32 billion decrease in mandatory spending that’s “due to the end of pandemic-era benefits and decreases in participation rates,” according to a summary of the bill from Senate Republicans.

Child nutrition programs — like the national school lunch program, school breakfast program and summer food programs — would get $33.3 billion, an increase of $4.7 billion over what the federal government currently spends.

The legislation doesn’t include many of the conservative policy riders House Republicans added in their original bill, such as a proposal to ban the abortion medication mifepristone from being sent to patients through the mail.

The bill has 72-pages of community projects, formerly known as earmarks, that will go to nearly every state in the country.

Commerce-Justice-Science 

The Commerce-Justice-Science spending bill provides approximately $67 billion in discretionary funding plus $2 billion in emergency funding “to address violent crime, counter the fentanyl crisis, and maintain U.S. scientific, technological, and economic superiority over China,” according to Senate Republicans’ summary of the bill.

That funding level would be divvied up with about $37.5 billion for the Department of Justice, $10.8 billion for the Department of Commerce, $9.1 billion for the National Science Foundation and nearly $24.9 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA.

The bill would approve $844 million for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, that will go toward legal services for underrepresented communities and modifications to courtrooms. That is about $16 million less than current law.

The bill would address the more than 2.5 million case backlog in immigration courts by hiring new immigration judges and providing training.

The bill would require EOIR to implement a performance appraisal based on recommendations from the Government Accountability Office for immigration judges and the agency has to submit a report to Congress on the results of the appraisal process.

The legislation provides an increase of $13 million for the Violence Against Women Act, bringing the funding level to  $713 million toward those programs. That funding will go toward assistance with transitional housing, domestic violence reduction, sexual assault services, research on violence against Indigenous women and legal assistance, among other initiatives.

The bill provides about $10.6 billion for the FBI, a decrease from fiscal 2023. That funding will go toward targeting fentanyl and opioid trafficking, child exploitation, trafficking and bioforensic analysis, among other initiatives.

The bill includes a 95% cut in funding for FBI construction, from $629.1 million to $30 million. The bill would require the FBI to conduct a study on the “feasibility of expanding the FBI operations in regional offices around the country,” according to the explanatory statement. 

The bill includes a provision that none of the funds can be used to “target or investigate parents who peacefully protest at school board meetings and are not suspected of engaging in unlawful activity.”

House Republicans have scrutinized the Justice Department after the agency directed the FBI to investigate threats of violence made to school board officials and teachers after a conservative backlash to discussions about race in public schools.

The bill would provide the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives with $1.6 billion, a decrease of $112 million below fiscal year 2023 levels in order to reverse “anti-Second Amendment overreach,” according to a summary of the bill by House Republicans.  

Members of Congress obtained 86 pages of earmarks in the Commerce-Justice-Science bill.

Energy-Water

The Energy-Water appropriations measure would moderately boost spending on defense — primarily the Energy Department’s nuclear programs — while cutting slightly from the bill’s domestic water infrastructure accounts.

The defense discretionary total in that bill, which is apart from overall Pentagon spending, would be $33.3 billion, a 6% increase from fiscal 2023, and discretionary domestic spending on the bill’s programs would be $24.9 billion, a 2% decrease.

The bill includes more than $50 billion for the Department of Energy, $8.7 billion for the Army Corp of Engineers, which oversees most federal water project construction, and $1.9 billion for the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation.

The National Nuclear Security Administration would see a nearly $2 billion funding increase from fiscal 2023, almost all of which is for the agency’s weapons activities.

The Bureau of Reclamation, the Interior Department agency that deals with water and hydroelectric power, would see a $31 million decrease to $1.9 billion.

The bill included 30 pages of earmarks.

Interior-Environment

The Interior-Environment funding bill, which covers the Interior Department, EPA and related agencies, totals $41.2 billion, which would be a decrease of more than $11 billion, more than 21%, from fiscal 2023.

The bill would cut nearly $1 billion of the EPA’s budget, a 9.6% decrease from fiscal 2023.

Most of that cut, $745 million, is from the agency’s Hazardous Substance Superfund. That account, which funds cleanup of massive environmental hazardous waste sites, would receive $537.7 million, down from $1.3 billion in fiscal 2023.

Two other long-term spending laws, the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law and Democrats’ 2022 energy, taxes and domestic policy law, provide additional funding for Superfund cleanup. Total federal spending would be more than $3 billion in fiscal 2024, even with the proposed cut.

Addressing wildfires was a priority in the bill, according to summaries from both Senate Democrats and House Republicans.

The bill includes $6 billion for the U.S. Forest Service, including $2.3 billion for the agency’s Wildland Fire Management program. That represents an increase of $1.37 billion for wildland fire management.

The bill would also maintain full funding for wildland firefighter pay, which was increased in the 2021 infrastructure law.

The bill maintains $900 million in mandatory federal spending for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that allocates money for federal land acquisition, state grants for outdoor recreation and related efforts.

And it would direct $1.9 billion in mandatory spending for the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund that addresses roads and buildings across five Interior Department agencies, with the bulk of the funding going to the National Park Service.

The funding levels in both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and public lands fund meet caps established in the 2020 Great American Outdoors Act and do not count against the discretionary funding limit.

The bill includes 100 pages of earmarks.

Military Construction-Veterans Affairs

Lawmakers are touting the Military Construction and VA bill’s $326.4 billion total as “fully funding” veterans’ benefits and health care, bolstering national security in the Indo-Pacific region, and upgrading housing for service members and their families, among other priorities, according to a statement Sunday from Murray’s office.

The bill contains $175.2 billion in mandatory spending on veterans’ benefits that encompass disability compensation, education and employment training.

On the discretionary side, $153.92 billion would be allocated to the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs as well as four related agencies, including Arlington National Cemetery, American Battle Monuments Commission, Armed Forces Retirement Home, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

If cleared by Congress, the lion’s share of the bill’s funds, at $134.8 billion, would go to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Of that total, roughly $121 billion would be allocated for veterans medical care, including $16.2 billion for mental health, $5.2 billion for telehealth services, $3.1 billion for homelessness programs, $231 million for substance abuse and opioid misuse prevention, and $108 million for overall well-being programs, or “Whole Health Initiatives.”

The remaining $18.675 billion in discretionary funds would head to the Department of Defense for the planning and construction of several military projects, including $2.4 billion for shipyard infrastructure, $2 billion for military family housing, and $1.5 billion for construction or upgrades to military Reserve and Guard facilities.

Specific domestic projects and their locations can be found in the 11 pages of lawmaker earmarks for community funding. They include a range of infrastructure upgrades, numerous child development centers and several barracks upgrades at military sites across the U.S.

Other allocations in the military construction spending total include $634 million for energy projects, $293 million to the NATO Security Investment Program, and $489 million for base realignment and closures, $50 million of which will be dedicated to the cleanup of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAS chemicals.

About $131 million would be allocated for planning, design and minor construction for the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, which operates in a strategically important region for the U.S. military.

The Military Construction and VA spending bill also sets some funding levels for the following fiscal year. The bill allocates $195.8 billion for veterans’ benefits and $112.6 billion in discretionary programs in 2025.

Transportation-HUD 

The Transportation-HUD appropriations measure would appropriate about $89.5 billion in discretionary funding for the dozens of programs throughout the bill.

Another $8 billion in emergency funding was added to the legislation “to maintain current rental assistance for low income Americans amid a collapse in housing receipts that are used to help offset the cost of such assistance,” according to a summary of the bill from Senate Republicans.

The Department of Transportation would receive $27 billion in discretionary funding while another $79 billion would come from obligation limitations, according to Senate Democrats’ summary of the bill.

The Federal Aviation Administration would receive $20.1 billion, about $1 billion more than its current funding level. The money would allow the FAA to hire “1,800 new controllers, improving training facilities at the air traffic controller academy, and addressing the reliability of critical IT and telecommunications legacy systems,” according to Senate Democrats’ summary.

The Federal Highway Administration would receive $63 billion, the Federal Railroad Administration would get $2.9 billion and the Federal Transit Administration would receive $16 billion.

“To address the rail safety deficiencies identified in the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment, the bill provides a $27.3 million increase for FRA’s safety and operations budget—meeting the President’s budget request for rail safety inspectors,” according to Senate Democrats’ summary.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development would receive $70.1 billion that would go toward “rental assistance and self-sufficiency support for low-income working families, seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities; housing and services to homeless individuals; and support for economic and community development,” according to the Senate Republican summary.

Homeless Assistance Grants would increase in funding by $418 million to $4.05 billion. Community Development Block Grants would receive $3.3 billion in funding.

The Native American Housing Block Grant program would receive $1.3 billion, a “historic level of funding” that would “make significant progress in addressing the dire housing needs of Indian Country, where residents are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty and nearly three times more likely to live in overcrowded conditions compared to other U.S. households,” according to Senate Democrats’ summary.

The Transportation-HUD bill includes 306 pages of community projects, or earmarks, making it one of the more significant bills for lawmakers to receive funding for priority initiatives.

Those include $1 million for the William Way LGBT Community Center in Philadelphia, one of three projects that House Republicans stripped out of their original bill in July after initially approving them.

The bill didn’t include funding for the LGBT Center of Greater Reading in Pennsylvania, which was originally selected for $970,000 in funding, or for affordable senior housing at LGBTQ Senior Housing, Inc. in Massachusetts, which was on track for $850,000 in funding.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for his arraignment at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 4, 2023 in New York City. With the indictment, Trump becomes the first former U.S. president in history to be charged with a criminal offense (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images).

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear former President Donald Trump’s argument that he should be immune from criminal charges related to the 2020 election.

In a one-page order, the court set an expedited briefing schedule, with oral arguments to be held the week of April 22. Proceedings in the federal trial court will be on hold while the Supreme Court case is ongoing, further delaying the trial originally scheduled to begin March 4.

The Supreme Court will consider only the question of “whether and if so to what extent” a former president is legally shielded from official actions while in office.

Trump and his lawyers had asked the high court to pause pretrial activities in District of Columbia federal court for the case brought by U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith that alleges Trump tried to overturn the results of the presidential election.

Smith, in his brief to the court, had asked justices to turn down the plea for a delay, saying a speedy trial is in the public interest. The claims of absolute presidential immunity and protection under the impeachment clause raised by Trump, now the GOP presidential front-runner, lack the merit needed for the justices to grant a stay, Smith said.

GOP attorneys general weigh in

The Republican attorneys general of 22 states filed a brief to the court Feb. 16 endorsing Trump’s request for a delay.

Led by Alabama, the group of GOP states said Smith’s effort to hasten a trial appeared to be politically motivated to damage President Joe Biden’s likely opponent in November’s election.

“Contrary to the prosecution’s haste, the fact that the defendant is a former President is a reason to move carefully—to be sure the prosecution is constitutional from inception,” they wrote. “And the fact that the defendant is potentially a future President is even more reason to ensure the appearance and reality of fairness.”

The states represented in the brief are Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Trump’s district court trial has been postponed indefinitely while the presidential immunity arguments play out.

Charges against Trump

A four-count federal indictment last year after an investigation by Smith accused Trump of conspiring to subvert his 2020 reelection loss to Biden, eventually leading to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

For weeks after the election, he fed his supporters a stream of lies claiming that he won the election but was denied a second term by voter fraud, the indictment said. He worked with attorneys, a U.S. Department of Justice official and a political consultant to organize slates of false presidential electors in seven states Biden won to take the place of Biden electors and pressured Vice President Mike Pence to reject the legitimate electors, according to the indictment.

Late last year, Trump asked to dismiss the charges, saying he could not be prosecuted for any actions he took as president. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan denied that claim, a ruling Trump appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

A three-judge appeals panel appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents unanimously denied Trump’s request in a Feb. 6 opinion that found the former president’s arguments “unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution.”

Trump then asked the Supreme Court to pause all proceedings in district court while he petitioned the appeals court to escalate his case to the full circuit and potentially the Supreme Court.

More than 500 new sanctions meant to disrupt Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ability to fund and wage war were imposed by the Biden administration on Friday. Putin is shown making a speech in Red Square during a Victory Day military parade marking the 75th anniversary of the victory in World War II, on June 24, 2020, in Moscow, Russia (Sergey Guneev – Host Photo Agency via Getty Images).

The Biden administration will impose a new round of economic sanctions targeting Russian fuel exports and military-industry imports, the Treasury Department announced Friday.

Coming one week after Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny died in the custody of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government and one day short of the two-year anniversary of the country’s invasion of Ukraine, the more than 500 new sanctions include targets inside and outside of Russia and are meant to disrupt Putin’s ability to fund and wage war.

“Our sanctions have two goals,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said Friday. “Reduce the revenues the Kremlin has to fuel its war of choice, and disrupt Russia’s ability to get the goods it needs to build the weapons the Kremlin wants.”

The sanctions were designed to “crack down” on Russia’s efforts to evade existing measures to disrupt the export of Russian energy, Adeyemo said in an appearance Friday at the Council on Foreign Relations, according to a department transcript.

Russia has spent considerable resources to avoid previous sanctions, Adeyemo said. Those efforts take away from what Russia can commit to the battlefield, he added.

Other targets

Friday’s sanctions also target third-country individuals and entities that provide Russia with weapons and other tools of war.

Those targets include six China-based technology suppliers and a precious metals investment firm based in Liechtenstein and owned by German nationals. They also include manufacturers based in Serbia, Estonia, Ireland, the Kyrgyz Republic and Finland, according to a news release from the Treasury Department.

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control also listed new targets in Russia’s military-industrial, financial and other sectors.

Companies include manufacturers or providers of weapons, 3D printers, metalworking equipment, industrial chemicals, semiconductors and other electronics, military informational technology, industrial automation, optics such as thermal imaging technology, navigational instruments, energy storage, aerospace, logistics and precious metals.

Treasury sanctioned nearly 300 companies. Together with sanctions from the departments of State and Commerce, the total announced Friday was more than 590, according to the Treasury Department.

The State Department would add three Russian government officials related to Navalny’s death to its sanctions list, according to the Treasury Department release. The State Department had not released its own list as of midday Friday.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement that the sanctions were appropriate to hold Putin accountable.

“Putin believes he can murder opponents and critics with impunity,” Brown said. “We must prove him wrong. The United States and the West must continue to hold the lawless Russian regime accountable. We must use every tool to protect U.S. national security and stand with our allies.”

Democrats travel to Ukraine

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York led a delegation of Senate Democrats to Ukraine this week. In Lyiv on Friday, he told reporters that the group sought to pressure U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, to support an aid package to the country that is running low on supplies to defend against Russia.

“Without the aid, Ukraine, America should know, Speaker Johnson and the House Republicans should know, without the aid, we will lose the war,” Schumer said, according to a transcript provided by his office.

“But conversely, we were told by just about everyone we saw — American, Ukrainian, military, political, diplomatic — that if they get the aid, if Ukraine gets the aid, it will win the war.”

Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut were part of the delegation with Schumer.

The Senate approved in a bipartisan vote this month a $95 billion package for emergency military aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

But the House, where Republicans have for months blocked any military assistance to Ukraine, has not acted on the measure.

President Joe Biden also urged the nation’s governors to press for Ukraine assistance during a meeting at the White House Friday.

After a campaign stop in California Thursday, Biden repeated his view that Putin is “responsible for” Navalny’s death. The outspoken Putin opponent, who was nearly killed by poison in 2020, died in a Russian prison last week.

The circumstances of his death are not clear in the West, but Biden has placed the blame on Putin.

Former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, who is challenging former President Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, indicated in a Friday statement that she would treat Russia more harshly than either Biden or Trump.

“When it comes to Russia,” she said, “Joe Biden has been five steps behind, and Donald Trump is openly appeasing Vladimir Putin.”

Former President Donald Trump answers a question as Joe Biden, then the Democratic presidential candidate, listens during the second and final presidential debate at Belmont University on Oct. 22, 2020, in Nashville, Tennessee (Morry Gash-Pool/Getty Images).

Age should not preclude either Joe Biden or Donald Trump from serving another four years as president, a group of aging experts said Thursday at a webinar organized by the American Federation for Aging Research.

If Biden, 81, and Trump, 77, are the candidates on Election Day, as appears likely right now, they would break their own record — set four years ago — as the oldest candidates in U.S. history.

But despite recent intense media coverage and significant skepticism from voters about both men, the presumptive nominees of both major parties appear up to the task of governing, the panel members agreed.

People age at different rates, and the ill effects of advanced age don’t appear to be having an impact on Biden or Trump, said S. Jay Olshansky, a professor of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago and research associate at the Center on Aging at the University of Chicago.

“Both in Biden and Trump’s case, we’ve got evidence to suggest … they’re doing exceptionally well,” Olshanksy said. “Don’t believe what you see in the media about loss of cognitive functioning and the like.”

The candidates fly across the country and sometimes across the world. They can be short on sleep and disoriented by time zone changes. And the pressures of a presidential campaign can magnify perceived failings, he added.

“I get a phone call every time either one of them stumbles or says something that’s off kilter,” Olsahnsky said. “They’re going, ‘What’s wrong?’

“I’m going, ‘Seriously, this happens to virtually all of us.’”

Available medical information suggests both candidates are doing fine, he added.

Both have family histories of “exceptional longevity,” with family members living into their 90s, Olshansky said.

Both are likelier than the average man their age to survive the next four years, Olshansky said. Biden and Trump are about 75% likely to live to the end of a potential second term, while the national average is 70%, he said.

Neither candidate drinks alcohol and Biden has eaten a healthy diet all his life and remains physically active, which reduces his cardiovascular risk, said Dr. Bradley Wilcox, the director of research at the department of geriatric medicine at the University of Hawaii’s medical school.

Ben Barnes, a former Democratic lieutenant governor of Texas who was first elected to that state’s legislature in 1960 at the age of 22, said age should not factor into a voter’s choice for president.

“There’s so many more important things about the candidates and about who the next president of the United States is going to be than their age,” Barnes said.

“Obviously, there’s some people who cannot function at the ages that these two candidates are and should not be considered for president. But I don’t think that age is something that should preclude either one of these people from becoming president.”

American Federation for Aging Research, a private nonprofit whose mission is to advance research on aging, scheduled the event before a string of recent events that brought renewed questions about Biden’s age.

Questions about age persist

But surveys of voters show that voters are concerned about the advanced age of both presidential candidates, particularly Biden.

More than three-quarters of respondents to an NBC News poll last month said they had either major or moderate concerns that Biden had the necessary mental and physical health to perform as president for a second term.

Prone to speaking gaffes even as a younger politician, Biden recently confused the names of foreign heads of states twice in a week.

While referring to the current leaders of France and Germany, he used the names of the countries’ deceased leaders of a generation ago.

Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Hur questioned Biden’s mental acuity while clearing the president of wrongdoing in his handling of sensitive documents, saying one of the reasons prosecutors didn’t bring charges against Biden was that they believed Biden “would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

In a press conference to complain about some details of Hur’s report, including passages questioning his memory, Biden mistakenly referred to the president of Egypt as the president of Mexico.

Trump, who has often lied and exaggerated throughout his public life and continues to do so on the campaign trail, also recently sustained seeming lapses in memory.

In October, he mixed up the identities of the presidents of Hungary and Turkey and last month appeared to mistake his GOP primary rival Nikki Haley with former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

He later said the Pelosi-Haley swap was intentional.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump attends a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on Feb. 15, 2024, in New York City. Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records last year, which prosecutors say was an effort to hide a potential sex scandal, both before and after the 2016 presidential election (Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump’s days fighting criminal charges in two courts could be arriving soon.

Special Counsel Jack Smith urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday not to pause federal election interference proceedings and a New York state judge on Thursday set a late March trial date on charges related to hush money allegations.

If the New York trial date holds, it will mark the first time a former U.S. president has been put on trial, even as he campaigns to be returned to office.

In the District of Columbia, Smith in a brief to the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked justices to deny Trump’s request to further delay proceedings in the case that alleges he tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

A speedy trial is in the public’s interest and the 2024 Republican presidential front-runner’s claims of absolute immunity and protection under the impeachment clause lack the merit needed for the justices to grant a stay, Smith said.

“The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy. A President’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law,” Smith wrote in the 40-page filing.

The Trump indictments: A seven-year timeline of key developments

Rather, the Supreme Court should treat Trump’s application for delay as a petition for the justices to speedily review and resolve the questions presented in the singular case, Smith said.

“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power,” Smith wrote.

If the justices decide to grant Trump’s request to stay trial proceedings, they should also immediately move to hear the immunity appeal and expedite that schedule, Smith said. He added that the court should set oral arguments in the case for March, “consistent with the Court’s expedition of other cases meriting such treatment.”

Case proceedings have been delayed for months as Trump’s request for criminal immunity has wound through the lower courts.

Smith underlined his own arguments for speed by filing his brief six days ahead of a deadline set by the Supreme Court.

New York trial to start March 25

That delay has not affected a separate criminal proceeding against Trump on New York state charges he falsified business records by paying hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 White House campaign.

That case is set to proceed to jury selection on March 25 under an order Judge Juan M. Merchan signed Thursday.

The judge overseeing the federal election interference case in the District of Columbia, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, had originally set March 4 as the start date for that trial. The charges stem from a four-count criminal indictment brought by a federal grand jury in August.

When Chutkan denied Trump’s immunity petition in early December, the former president appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Smith cites a ‘radical claim’

The three-judge federal appeals panel unanimously denied Trump’s request in a Feb. 6 opinion that found the former president’s arguments “unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution.”

On Monday, Trump asked the Supreme Court to pause all proceedings in district court while he petitions the appeals court to escalate his case to a full-judge panel — a move that Smith says holds no merit.

The unanimous appeals ruling, issued by the three judges who were appointed by both Democratic and Republican administrations, clearly signals that Trump’s “radical claim” will not be successful before a full appeals court, Smith argued.

“That position finds no support in constitutional text, separation-of-powers principles, history, or logic,” Smith wrote. “And if that radical claim were accepted, it would upend understandings about Presidential accountability that have prevailed throughout history while undermining democracy and the rule of law.”

Former presidents have long understood themselves to be subject to criminal prosecution following their terms, Smith said, meaning Trump’s argument that anything short of full immunity would cause untold damage to the power of the presidency should be rejected.

Even after President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal “removed any doubt” of a former president’s criminal liability, no president until Trump has claimed that fear of post-presidency prosecution had any impact on Oval Office decision-making, Smith said.

Watergate, which also dealt with a president’s unlawful attempts to remain in power, led to a criminal investigation and Nixon accepting a pardon for criminal activities arising from his conduct, Smith said.

“The Nation’s tradition is therefore clear: Presidential conduct that violates the criminal law to achieve the end of remaining in power may be subject to a prosecution.”

New York case 

A trial on the federal election interference charges — one of four criminal trials pending against Trump — has been delayed from its initial start date following a months-long detour on the immunity issue.

That delay has allowed another trial to likely be the first to open against the former president, the one in New York state court.

Following the Thursday hearing in the case, Trump posted to his social media platform, Truth Social, to deny the charges and claim the state charges — as he says about all the criminal allegations he faces — are politically motivated.

“Just left the Courthouse in Manhattan,” Trump wrote. “Biden’s DOJ people have taken control of the case. There was NO CRIME, and almost all legal scholars are saying that. It’s Election Interference, the Dems 2024 way of cheating!”

Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.

Trump also faces federal charges in South Florida that he improperly handled classified documents and refused to turn them over to authorities after he left office and state election interference charges in Georgia making similar allegations as the federal election interference case.

The Supreme Court heard another Trump case last week related to Colorado’s decision to remove him from the state’s presidential primary ballot. The state’s Supreme Court ruled in December that Trump should be disqualified from the race under a provision of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment that bars insurrectionists from holding office.

A decision is expected soon.

Passengers walk through a terminal at Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, or BWI, on Dec. 22, 2021 in Baltimore, Maryland. The Biden administration on Thursday announced nearly $1 billion in funding for airport terminal improvements, including at BWI (Alex Wong/Getty Images).

The Biden administration will send close to $1 billion to airports across the country to upgrade terminal facilities, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced Thursday.

The $970 million in grants will go to 144 airports in 44 states and three territories. Earmarked for terminal improvements, Buttigieg and other administration officials said the grants would fund projects to improve the passenger experience and create jobs.

The administration has worked to improve the air travel experience, Buttigieg told reporters Wednesday.

“Part of that better travel experience is to invest in our physical infrastructure to improve the airports that represent the beginning and end of every passenger’s journey and airports that are a key economic engine for workers who show up there every day and communities that rely on those airports to sustain their connectedness and their competitiveness,” Buttigieg said.

The grants will fund a variety of projects, ranging from building new terminals or concourses to making bathrooms bigger, Buttigieg said.

The funds would also help improve baggage systems and security screening areas, expand public transit options, build solar energy infrastructure and increase accessibility, Buttigieg said.

“This funding is real,” said Shannetta Griffin, the Federal Aviation Administration’s deputy administrator for airports. “We are changing lives.”

In Missouri, Kirksville Regional Airport will receive a little over $3 million to replace current terminal that has reached the end of it useful life. Springfield-Branson National Airport will receive $5.3 million to improve passenger terminal building by replacing up to five passenger boarding bridges.

Buttigieg and Griffin briefed reporters on the grant selections on the condition their comments not be made public until Thursday.

The FAA received more than 600 applications for grants asking for a total of $14 billion, Griffin said.

Infrastructure law

The funding is authorized by the infrastructure law enacted in 2021. The grant selections this week represent the third round of roughly $1 billion of annual grant funding under the program. The law’s airport terminal program provides $5 billion over 5 years.

The total costs for the projects selected this year are more than $10.3 billion, meaning the grants announced Thursday cover an average of about 9.4% of total project costs.

Separate funding is available for aviation operations. The infrastructure law provides $25 billion in funding for airports, including the terminal grants.

Buttigieg highlighted grants to small airports in Appleton, Wisconsin, and on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation that spans portions of North Dakota and South Dakota.

The Appleton International Airport will receive $3.4 million for a $78 million overhaul that includes adding four gates, updating buildings and improving access.

The Standing Rock Airport will receive $700,000 out of $800,000 needed to build a new terminal building near Fort Yates, North Dakota. The general aviation airport, used for recreation and medical emergencies, does not have a terminal.

The largest grant in this year’s selections will go to Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Florida. A $50 million grant will be put toward a $221 million terminal connector.

Large grants will also go to major hubs, including $40 million for Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, $36 million for the Phoenix airport, $35 million for Washington Dulles International Airport in Northern Virginia and $26.6 million for Denver’s airport.

Buttigieg will be in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Thursday to announce a $27 million grant for that city’s airport to replace passenger boarding bridges.

President Donald Trump speaks on stage during a campaign rally at the Target Center on Oct. 10, 2019 in Minneapolis (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to further delay his federal criminal trial on charges he attempted to subvert the 2020 election, contending his actions were protected by presidential immunity.

In a 40-page application to the Supreme Court late Monday, Trump and his attorneys asked the justices to pause pretrial activities in federal district court for the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith accusing Trump of lying to and encouraging supporters who turned violent on Jan. 6, 2021 and attacked the U.S. Capitol.

Trump’s application comes just days after the Supreme Court justices heard arguments in a separate case involving the former president, this time about whether Colorado could bar him from the 2024 presidential primary ballot because he violated the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The justices met the argument with skepticism.

Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, plans to challenge a three-judge panel appeals court ruling last week that said he could not claim presidential immunity to escape the criminal charges accusing him of conspiring to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election.

Trump’s team said in the Monday application that they plan to appeal “en banc,” meaning to the full D.C. Circuit appeals court, and also to the U.S. Supreme Court, “if necessary,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

Smith had asked the Supreme Court in December to fast-track Trump’s immunity question, essentially leapfrogging the federal appeals process, but the justices declined the request.

The brief cited Trump’s schedule ahead of November’s presidential election, saying a long trial would keep him off the campaign trail and deprive “tens of millions of American voters, who are entitled to hear President Trump’s campaign message as they decide how to cast their ballots.”

“Conducting a months-long criminal trial of President Trump at the height of election season will radically disrupt President Trump’s ability to campaign against President Biden — which appears to be the whole point of the Special Counsel’s persistent demands for expedition,” Trump’s lawyers said.

A majority of justices would have to vote to grant a stay for it to take effect.

Immunity argument

Trump is likely to win a high court case, his lawyers said Monday, because he was representing an essential aspect of presidential power. Allowing presidents to be prosecuted would create a constant threat of prosecution for every future president, making the job virtually unmanageable.

“This threat will hang like a millstone around every future President’s neck, distorting Presidential decisionmaking, undermining the President’s independence,” Trump’s attorneys wrote. “Without immunity from criminal prosecution, the Presidency as we know it will cease to exist.”

All the allegations in the four-count indictment stemmed from actions Trump took in his official capacity as president as a good-faith effort to reverse widespread election fraud, the brief said.

Prosecutors say Trump knew there was not determinative voter fraud, but nonetheless pressured state officials, Department of Justice leaders, Vice President Mike Pence, and others to illegally use the claim to overturn the election results.

The pressure campaign eventually led to the deadly storming of the Capitol by Trump’s supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, according to prosecutors and the U.S. House committee that investigated the matter.

Shortly after he left office, the U.S. House impeached Trump for his role in the attack. But with only seven Republican senators joining all Democrats in voting to convict Trump, the former president was acquitted in a Senate trial.

That should also protect Trump from court prosecution under the principle of double jeopardy that says a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime, Trump’s lawyers argued to the Supreme Court.

Four of the Supreme Court’s nine justices would have to agree to hear the case. Trump appointed three of them.

Original trial date postponed

Although Trump has not succeeded in having the case thrown out over presidential immunity, the issue has gobbled up months of court time and delayed his trial.

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is the trial judge in the case, said last month she would postpone the original trial start date of March 4. She has not set a new date.

In October, Trump made a pretrial motion to throw out the charges based on his presidential immunity theory.

Chutkan denied the motion, and Trump appealed her decision to the D.C. Circuit.

A panel of the appeals court ruled last week to uphold Chutkan’s decision, and gave Trump until Monday to take the case to the Supreme Court.

In early January, Trump’s lawyer D. John Sauer argued before federal appeals judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs that the former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution because presidents cannot be tried for “official acts” taken while in office.

When asked by the judges about hypothetical criminal acts including ordering the assassination of a political rival or selling military secrets, Sauer notably argued that if presidents are not impeached and convicted, they would be immune from criminal prosecution.

In the unanimous unsigned federal appeals opinion on Feb. 6, the judges dismissed Trump’s arguments as “unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution.”

“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” they wrote.

The three-judge federal appeals panel comprised appointees from both Democrat and Republican administrations — Henderson, appointed by George H.W. Bush, and both Pan and Childs were appointed by President Joe Biden.

Residences stand in front of a Venture Global LNG storage tank in Cameron, Louisiana (Getty Images).

Members of a U.S. House panel on climate and energy issues split along party lines Tuesday about the Biden administration’s recent move to pause new approvals of liquified natural gas exports.

Republicans called a hearing to challenge the Energy Department’s announcement last month that it would indefinitely bar new LNG permits to non-free-trade partners as it studies the impacts, including on climate change, of LNG use.

Republicans on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy, Climate and Grid Security blasted the move Tuesday, saying it undercut the economic and environmental benefits of natural gas and hurt the United States on the world stage.

Democrats countered that it was an appropriate time to review an industry that has tripled its export capacity in five years.

‘A handout to adversaries’

As global demand for LNG grows, the move from President Joe Biden’s administration would slow U.S. exports and allow the market to be filled with energy products from hostile nations like Russia and Iran, subcommittee Chair Jeff Duncan, a South Carolina Republican, said.

“The Biden administration’s energy policy has been a handout to our adversaries,” he said.

Full Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Washington Republican, said the industry employed hundreds of thousands and was responsible for billions of dollars in economic activity.

“President Biden’s LNG export ban will end these benefits for local economies, kill American jobs and increase energy prices,” she said.

Toby Z. Rice, the president and CEO of natural gas producer EQT Corp., told the panel he viewed the move as a ban, not a short-term pause. The policy would slow the industry, he said.

“I think this is a signal that will chill investments,” he said.

Eric Cormier, a senior vice president at the business coalition Southwest Louisiana Chamber Economic Development Alliance, said a slowdown in the industry would harm other businesses, especially in the leading region for LNG exports.

“When the administration announced its decision, my cell phone rang quite a bit,” he said. “Small business owners were panicking.”

Cormier said his group “adamantly disagrees” with the pause.

LNG advocates also say the product is cleaner than coal and other fossil fuels it can replace.

And U.S. natural gas is 40% cleaner than what Russia produces, Rodgers said.

Time to ‘take a hard look’

Democrats argued it was prudent to study the climate impacts of LNG and described the pause as a relatively modest step that would provide a better analysis of the tradeoffs of natural gas production.

The Energy Department’s analysis for LNG authorizations was last updated in 2018, when the U.S. industry exported one-third of natural gas it has capacity for today, subcommittee ranking Democrat Diana DeGette of Colorado said.

The pause does not affect projects already constructed or projects that have gained Energy Department approval. It wouldn’t change a projection that LNG production would again double in the next 10 years, DeGette said.

“The fact that our nation’s production has ramped up so quickly must be considered, especially since the U.S. currently has enough approved capacity to fulfill the world’s energy needs in the short and medium terms,” she said. “Continuously increasing LNG exports without updating guidelines to account for new information is a fundamentally unserious proposal.”

The pause would allow the department to gain a wider view of all the potential benefits and drawbacks of new proposals and better assess what projects “are actually in the public interest,” DeGette said.

“Looking out to the future, as the estimates are that the exports could double, it is an appropriate time for the administration to take a hard look on what the impacts are going to be,” Florida Democrat Kathy Castor said.

Gillian Giannetti, a senior attorney with the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, called the pause “a moderate but important” step. She said it was consistent with the requirement in federal law that new natural gas export approvals are only permitted if they are found to be in the public interest.

Russia debate

Duncan and Rodgers said the pause would help Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose country is a leading producer of natural gas.

If the U.S. share of global supply declines, Russian natural gas could fill the gap, they said.

Even if Russia’s market share doesn’t grow, the global price impact of reduced U.S. supply could make Russian exports more valuable, allowing Putin to pump more money into a war effort against Ukraine, Kentucky Republican Brett Guthrie said.

Brigham McCown, the director of the Initiative on American Security at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, agreed with that premise.

“The world is going to get its LNG from somewhere,” McCown said. “And if not from us, it’s going to be from other, less stable, less reliable partners like Russia.”

But Democrats questioned Republicans’ commitment to taking Ukraine’s side in its war with Russia.

Most of the Republicans on the panel opposed a Ukraine aid package when it came up for a vote, the full committee ranking Democrat, Frank Pallone of New Jersey, said.

DeGette noted Republicans were set to vote Tuesday afternoon on an aid package that did not include funding for Ukraine.

Energy state Democrats more skeptical

While leading Energy and Commerce Democrats praised the pause Tuesday, it has not won universal acclaim from all members of the party.

Pennsylvania’s U.S. Sens. Bob Casey and John Fetterman, both Democrats, declared in a statement last week that Pennsylvania was “an energy state” and said they were concerned about the effects of the pause.

“While the immediate impacts on Pennsylvania remain to be seen, we have concerns about the long-term impacts that this pause will have on the thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania’s natural gas industry,” they said. “If this decision puts Pennsylvania energy jobs at risk, we will push the Biden Administration to reverse this decision.”

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin III, a longtime supporter of fossil fuels who is reportedly considering a third-party presidential campaign on a centrist platform, strongly criticized the measure and scheduled a hearing later this week to examine the issue.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for his arraignment at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 4, 2023 in New York City. With the indictment, Trump becomes the first former U.S. president in history to be charged with a criminal offense (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for charges he schemed to overturn the 2020 election, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, rejecting Trump’s argument he was immune from criminal prosecution for any alleged conduct during his presidential term.

In a unanimous opinion, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel denied Trump’s request to throw out the federal charges accusing him of lying to and encouraging supporters who turned violent on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump and his attorneys argued the case should be dismissed because Trump was acting in his official capacity as president and that allowing a president to be sued would have disastrous consequences.

The court found those arguments were “unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution.”

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” Tuesday’s unsigned opinion said. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”

Trump is expected to appeal the ruling, either to the full D.C. Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a process that could take months while he continues his campaign as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

Neither court is required to take the case, but exercising his appellate options will help Trump extend the case, potentially beyond Election Day, although Trump and his legal team have not explicitly said it is part of their strategy to delay the case as long as possible.

Further appeals

The full D.C. Circuit is “highly unlikely” to hear a further appeal of the presidential immunity ruling, according to legal experts Norman L. Eisen, Matthew A. Seligman and Joshua Kolb, who wrote an outline of potential timelines in the case for Just Security, a site devoted to foreign policy, democracy and security analysis, that published Jan. 9.

The Supreme Court is also “unlikely” to hear an appeal, they wrote.

Trump brought the appeal from a trial court in D.C., where he faces federal charges related to the 2021 attack on the Capitol. An investigation by special counsel Jack Smith resulted in a four-count indictment last year accusing Trump of conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The indictment accuses Trump of working with a group of co-conspirators to recruit false slates of electors, lying to the public about non-existent determinative election fraud and encouraging supporters to obstruct the election certification in a violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump raised a so-called presidential immunity defense in the trial court, saying he could not be prosecuted for the actions alleged in the indictment because he was acting in his official capacity as president to counteract election fraud.

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan denied that claim, a decision Trump appealed to the D.C. Circuit. On Friday, Chutkan also officially postponed his trial, which had been set to begin March 4.

Hours before the three-judge panel issued its ruling, Trump posted in all capital letters on his online platform, Truth Social, that “IF IMMUNITY IS NOT GRANTED TO A PRESIDENT, EVERY PRESIDENT THAT LEAVES OFFICE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY.”

“WITHOUT COMPLETE IMMUNITY, A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROPERLY FUNCTION!” he wrote.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

Sen. Josh Hawley speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 2020 (Carolyn Kaster-Pool/Getty Images).

Members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee castigated executives at leading social media companies Wednesday, calling for more to be done to shield children from sexual exploitation, drug dealing, self-harm encouragement and other damaging content.

In one tense exchange, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley demanded to know if Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, had ever apologized to his platforms’ victims — prompting Zuckerberg to turn around and briefly speak to the audience of family members in the Senate committee room, saying he was sorry for what they have gone through.

Senators of both parties during the four-hour, emotionally charged hearing promoted a raft of bills the committee has unanimously passed that they say would add significant accountability to tech platforms.

And they urged the tech executives — including Zuckerberg of Meta, Shou Chew of TikTok and Linda Yaccarino of X — to work with them on legislation or risk being “regulated out of business.”

Social media users, especially children and teens, are vulnerable to online scams, extortion and other dangerous material, several senators said.

More than 100,000 instances of child sexual abuse material are reported daily, said Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat.

Children and teens are also subject to “sextortion,” where predators trick them into providing compromising material, then demand payments to keep the images from being shown publicly, he said.

The psychological damage from such episodes can lead to suicide, Durbin and other senators noted.

The panel’s ranking Republican, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said he had concluded that, perhaps despite company founders’ initial aims, social media platforms are “dangerous products” that are “destroying lives, threatening democracy itself.”

“You have blood on your hands,” he said in an opening statement, prompting the first of several rounds of applause from an audience filled with family members of victims of online exploitation. “You have a product that’s killing people.”

Big tech defense

The social media executives acknowledged that their platforms could be exploited by bad actors, but said harmful content made up small portions of what appeared on their platforms and noted their companies had teams working to control unsafe material.

The executives declared a responsibility to protect users from dangerous content.

“All of us here on the panel today and throughout the tech industry have a solemn and urgent responsibility to ensure that everyone who uses our platforms is protected from these criminals, both online and off,” Jason Citron, CEO of the video game-focused platform Discord Inc., said.

But the executives were hesitant to commit their support to legislation touted by senators that would expand protections for social media users.

Graham asked Citron if he supported several policy changes, including repealing Section 230 of the Communications Act that protects online companies from liability for content on their platforms.

Citron didn’t endorse any.

“So here you are,” Graham said. “If you wait on these guys to solve the problem, we’re going to die waiting.”

Senators demand votes

Graham called for “a day of reckoning on the floor of the United States Senate” to have votes on the proposals passed out of the committee.

Those bipartisan bills include Graham’s legislation to remove Section 230 protections in the cases of sexual exploitation of minors and a bill from Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar to criminalize distribution of revenge porn.

Graham, Klobuchar and other members of the committee said opening the companies to legal liability was key to making the user experience safer.

Klobuchar said the platforms could be venues for drug dealing, citing examples of people who died after buying fentanyl-laced pills on social media platforms.

“When a Boeing plane lost a door in mid-flight several weeks ago, nobody questioned the decision to ground a fleet of over 700 planes,” she said. “So why aren’t we taking the same type of decisive action on the danger of these platforms when we know these kids are dying?”

North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis urged the executives to “secure your platforms.”

“Do you not have an inherent mandate to deal with this?” he said. “Because it would seem to me if you don’t, you’re going to cease to exist. I mean, we could regulate you out of business if we wanted to.”

Hawley and Zuckerberg 

In the back-and-forth between Hawley and Zuckerberg, Hawley urged the billionaire social media pioneer to compensate victims of abuse on his company’s platforms.

Zuckerberg said his job was to make platforms safer, which his company took seriously.

“Have you apologized to the victims?” Hawley asked Zuckerberg. “Would you like to do so now? They’re here, you’re on national television. Would you like now to apologize to the victims?”

Zuckerberg stood and turned around to face the audience. His full remarks were not captured by the microphone he had turned away from, but he could be heard saying he was sorry for what families had experienced.

“No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered,” he said. “This is why we invest so much and are going to continue to do industry-leading efforts to make sure that no one has to go through the types of things that your families have had to suffer.”

The audience, which had applauded Hawley’s aggressive questioning, was silent as Zuckerberg sat and turned back to the senators.

TikTok Chinese ties again under fire

A few Republican senators asked Chew about the data security of TikTok users, noting the platform’s parent company was based in China and subject to the Communist country’s requirements to share data with the government.

The issue was the subject of its own U.S. House hearing last year, with Chew as the sole witness.

TikTok “is subject to the control and inspection of a foreign, hostile government that has actively tried to track the information and whereabouts of every American they can get their hands on,” Hawley, who has a bill to bar the platform from the United States, told Chew Wednesday. “Your app ought to be banned in the United States of America.”

Chew said the company, which is headquartered in the U.S., has a program based in Texas that is dedicated to users’ data security.

Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton questioned Chew’s personal loyalties. Cotton, a former U.S. Army captain, asked if Chew, a citizen of Singapore, had ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party.

“No, Senator,” Chew answered. “Again, I’m Singaporean.”

Chew, who is married to a U.S. citizen and has two children who are U.S. citizens, said he had “not yet” applied for his own U.S. citizenship. He and his family live in Singapore, he said.

Cotton pushed Chew to label Chinese President Xi Jinping a dictator. Chew declined to answer, saying he was there to answer questions about his company, not comment on world leaders.

“Are you scared that you’ll lose your job if you say anything negative about the Chinese Communist Party?” Cotton asked. “Are you scared that you’ll be arrested and disappeared the next time you go to mainland China?”

Chew said content critical of the Chinese regime could be found on TikTok.

Compelled to testify

Zuckerberg and Chew appeared at the hearing voluntarily, Durbin said, while the others ­— Yaccarino, Citron and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel — testified only after they received subpoenas. U.S. marshals had to visit Discord’s San Francisco headquarters to serve Citron, he added.

Each of the five companies represented at the hearing took steps to improve child-safety features in recent days, Durbin said, derisively noting the timing was “coincidentally” just before the hearing.

“Coincidentally, coincidentally, several of these companies implemented common-sense child safety improvements within the last week,” he said. “Days before their CEOs would have to justify their lack of action before this committee.”

(Morry Gash-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Leading Republicans — and the Biden presidential campaign — on Wednesday rushed to identify former President Donald Trump as the presumptive GOP nominee after he won decisively in New Hampshire’s Republican presidential primary.

Trump bested Nikki Haley, his former United Nations ambassador, by more than 10 percentage points in a moderate state with an open primary that would have been expected to play to her strengths. His Tuesday victory came days after he won the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses on Jan. 15.

Rather than thrust Haley, the former South Carolina governor, into a two-person race for the GOP nomination as she’d hoped, the New Hampshire results showed Trump is virtually unbeatable in the many GOP primaries yet to come through the next months. Republican senators like John Cornyn of Texas and Deb Fischer of Nebraska issued their endorsements as Trump’s win became apparent.

“Barring some unforeseen event, Donald Trump’s going to be the Republican nominee,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist and partner at Firehouse Strategies. “It’s just who Republican voters want. In Iowa, New Hampshire, but also every national poll and every state primary poll, Trump’s leading by a lot. So at the end of the day, elections have consequences and Republicans like Donald Trump.”

The former president’s victory set up a general election rematch with President Joe Biden, who nearly tripled his closest Democratic rival’s vote total in New Hampshire despite not even being on the ballot.

Haley is skipping the next nominating contest, the Feb. 8 Nevada caucus, to focus on her home state’s Feb. 24 primary where she also faces a significant polling gap. She has little realistic chance of winning the nomination and may officially drop her bid in the coming days, said Todd Belt, a George Washington University professor and director of the school’s political management program.

“She’s going to have to wage a really tremendous ground game and air game to be anywhere competitive, to avoid, frankly, getting embarrassed,” he said. “I give it 50-50 odds that (she drops out) in the next day or two.”

The Biden campaign told reporters the general election campaign has arrived.

“I want to kick things off by stating the obvious: The results out of New Hampshire confirm that Donald Trump has all but locked up the GOP nomination,” Julie Chavez Rodriguez, Biden’s campaign manager, began her remarks on a Wednesday morning call with reporters.

Trump’s presumptive nomination provides a stark choice for voters, Chavez Rodriguez and other campaign officials said. In previews of likely themes throughout the next nine months of a general election campaign, they noted Biden’s support for abortion rights and Trump’s attacks on the democratic system.

Trump attacks Haley: ‘She lost’

Trump won both of the first two nominating contests, the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucuses, which no non-incumbent GOP candidate had ever done. The double-digit margins in both states left little doubt about the shape of the race moving forward.

In a celebratory speech after capturing nearly 55% of the vote Tuesday, Trump also claimed victory in Nevada and predicted “easily” winning South Carolina.

He took several shots at Biden and Haley, whose upbeat tone in a speech earlier in the evening seemed to irk the front-runner.

“She’s doing a speech like she won,” he said. “She didn’t win. She lost.”

With the support of New Hampshire’s centrist GOP Gov. Chris Sununu, Haley needed a victory in the Granite State to have any chance at the nomination, Trump said.

“She did very poorly, actually,” he added. “She had to win. The governor said, ‘She’s gonna win, she’s gonna win, she’s gonna win.’ Then she failed badly.”

Trump also repeated the lie that his 2020 loss to Biden was the result of fraud.

Haley says she’s ready for long race

Haley pledged to continue running at least through South Carolina, saying she was “in it for the long haul.” She has reserved $1.8 million of television ad time in South Carolina, according to the advertising tracking firm AdImpact, and debuted a 30-second commercial Wednesday that called a Biden-Trump race “a rematch no one wants.”

But the odds are against her.

Trump won majorities in the first two nominating contests, even as he faces four criminal trials. 

The prosecutions have not hurt Trump among Republican voters, who largely view them as illegitimate political exercises. Exit polling in Iowa and New Hampshire showed most GOP voters would still support Trump if he was convicted.

But even a conviction is unlikely to shake up the Republican race because of the timing. None of the criminal cases are likely to go to trial before March 5, the date known as Super Tuesday because nearly half of delegates will be up for grabs in 15 nominating contests.

Haley could technically stay in the race as long as she wants, but funding a competitive campaign will become less possible as Trump continues to rack up victories, Belt said.

Donors won’t continue contributing to a campaign that has shown no sign of winning, he said.

“They don’t want to throw bad money after bad,” he said.

Congressional Republicans see race narrowing

Key Republican senators appeared nearly ready Tuesday and Wednesday to call Trump their party’s standard bearer for 2024.

Former Senate GOP Whip Cornyn endorsed Trump Tuesday evening, saying it was “clear that President Trump is Republican voters’ choice,” and calling for his GOP colleagues to rally around the former president.

“I have seen enough,” he wrote in a Tuesday night social media post. “To beat Biden, Republicans need to unite around a single candidate.”

Fischer, of Nebraska, also offered her endorsement on social media as the New Hampshire results came in.

“It’s time for Republicans to unite around President Donald Trump and make Joe Biden a one-term president,” she wrote.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, congratulated Trump on winning the New Hampshire primary in a post on social media.

“Our House Republican leaders and a majority of Republican Senators support his reelection, and Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have strongly backed him at the polls,” Johnson said. “It’s now past time for the Republican Party to unite around President Trump so we can focus on ending the disastrous Biden presidency and growing our majority in Congress.”

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday on Capitol Hill that he was skeptical Haley could continue to stay in the race following the results of the New Hampshire primary.

“I think the path for her is very narrow, and after South Carolina (primary) gets even more narrow,” he said.

The handful of endorsements showed Trump’s strength in the party that has transformed in the past eight years into a group of Trump loyalists, Belt said.

“They came very quickly,” he said of the endorsements. “They know better than to antagonize Trump’s voters, because they’re active, they vote and they are organized.”

Not ready yet

Some Republican senators, though, were not yet ready to endorse the front-runner in interviews Wednesday at the U.S. Capitol.

Iowa GOP Sen. Joni Ernst said she “likely” wouldn’t endorse a candidate, though she didn’t entirely rule it out.

“I just think it’s good that all of these constituencies have the opportunity to select the person they feel is best qualified,” Ernst said.

But she also praised Haley when asked if Haley could have a path to winning the Republican nomination for president.

“I think she is a fabulous candidate and a great leader, but I don’t know what the polls will look like moving forward,” Ernst said.

West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said she might endorse a candidate, though she didn’t give any indication whether that would be Trump or Haley.

“I haven’t endorsed in the past in the presidential but … I’m considering it. Yes. I’ll just put it that way,” Capito said.

In a later interview, Capito said the New Hampshire win was a “good victory” for Trump and noted that Haley recognized that in her speech.

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman said he hadn’t decided if he would endorse in the presidential primary. But he noted polling indicates Trump will likely become the nominee.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley pledged his support for the eventual nominee, without mentioning Trump.

“Just be assured of this — I’m going to support the Republican nominee because we can’t spend four more years on inflation and an insecure border and the national security problems that are connected with criminals coming to this country.”

Utah’s Mitt Romney, a persistent Republican critic of Trump, said that even though the party’s nominating contest has “pretty much concluded,” he wouldn’t be supporting Trump for president.

U.S. Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri said past mismanagement of nuclear plants and waste sites put communities at severe health risks — impacts the federal government hid for decades (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

The United States should not expand nuclear energy use, at least until the federal government can make up for the harms caused by previous nuclear projects, U.S. Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri said at a congressional hearing in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.

Bush cited the health problems nuclear waste has caused to many in her predominantly Black St. Louis-area district.

Bush, a Democrat who is aligned with the party’s progressive wing and serves as the ranking member on the U.S. House Oversight & Accountability subcommittee that held the hearing, said past mismanagement of nuclear plants and waste sites put communities at severe health risks — impacts the federal government hid for decades.

Bush alluded to an investigation last year by The Missouri Independent, MuckRock and The Associated Press that found private companies and the federal government for decades downplayed potential health risks of contamination in the St. Louis region.

In internal memos dating to the 1940s, they minimized health risks from exposed nuclear waste leaching into groundwater and neighborhood creeks as “slight,” “minimal” or “low-risk.” Residents in the area were never warned of the dangers.

“Records released last July showed that the federal government both hid and downplayed the risks of this radioactive waste in St. Louis for nearly 75 years,” Bush said in an opening statement Thursday.

“Action needs to be taken to remediate the damage that … has already been done before we start talking about expanding nuclear energy in this country,” she said. “We have a responsibility to both fix — and learn from — our mistakes before we risk subjecting any other communities to the same exposure.”

Nuclear waste in general has been “especially” harmful for communities of color, Bush said.

A state analysis showed that effects from radioactive waste that contaminated St. Louis’ Coldwater Creek and the surrounding area led to harmful health outcomes, Bush said.

Brain cancer and other cancers related to the nervous system were 300% more common in children in eight ZIP codes near Coldwater Creek than the national average, she said, citing a state analysis. Breast, colon, prostate, kidney and bladder cancers were also significantly more common, she added.

Bush renewed a call for a field hearing in her district to examine the issue. Her comments came at a hearing of the U.S. House Oversight & Accountability Committee Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs focused on how to further nuclear energy use.

Subcommittee Chairman Pat Fallon, a Texas Republican, said committee staff was working on Bush’s request for a field hearing, but that her concerns weren’t relevant to Thursday’s hearing.

“I think we’re talking about properly stored nuclear waste,” he said after Bush’s statement.

Nuclear power potential

Fallon described himself as “a proponent of the all-of-the-above approach where we use oil, natural gas, clean coal, wind, solar, hydro and — of course — nuclear.”

Nuclear power is among the most powerful and cleanest forms of energy available, providing more than 70% of U.S. non-greenhouse gas-emitting power, Fallon said.

Kathryn Huff, the assistant secretary at the U.S. Energy Department’s Office of Nuclear Energy, told the committee that nuclear energy should be part of the national strategy to transition away from carbon-emitting energy sources.

At the United Nations climate summit late last year, President Joe Biden and other countries committed to tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050. Biden has requested $2.16 billion in supplemental funding for long-term enrichment programs, she said.

Huff said the government has stored and transported nuclear fuel without incident for 55 years, but acknowledged that storage and disposal of nuclear fuel could be controversial. The department would seek a “consent-based” approach to siting nuclear processing and waste sites, she said. 

“But the promise of new and advanced reactors can only be responsibly realized in conjunction with progress on the long-term management of their U.S. nuclear fuel,” she said. “A consent-based approach is not only the most equitable and just way to approach siting but also represents our best chance of success.”

Nuclear waste and environmental justice

Bush told Huff that “consent is definitely a good start,” to improving the process for making siting decisions.

But she and other Democrats raised issues about the health impacts from nuclear power, especially in communities of color.

New Mexico Democrat Melanie Stansbury said the government never apologized for the effects people in her state suffered from the testing of the first atomic bomb.

“New Mexico has been a dumping ground for nuclear waste since the 1940s,” she said.

The problem of nuclear storage still troubles the state, she added.

And despite talk of consent-based siting decisions, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed a nuclear facility over numerous requests not to approve the site from local, state and federal officials, she said.

“The NRC licensed a nuclear facility in New Mexico in May of last year against our dissent,” she said. “And we are not OK with that.”

The comment came after Stansbury’s five minutes for questioning had expired, and she struggled to speak over Fallon’s gavel and calls that she was out of order.

“You know what, it is out of order to dump nuclear waste in our communities,” she said.

“I agree,” Fallon responded. “But you didn’t remove one bit of nuclear waste by being out of order here.”

Ohio Democrat Shontel Brown also noted that nuclear waste sites have historically “been far more likely to be placed in close proximity to communities than their white counterparts.”

She noted the inherent health risks involved in those placements and asked Huff and Daniel Dorman, the executive director for operations for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, how the Biden administration was handling issues of environmental justice, a movement that seeks to address the disproportionate impacts of pollution and other environmental problems on underserved communities.

Huff said the Energy Department added community benefit plans as part of the application process for grants, which provided a way “to incorporate the concerns and needs of historically underserved and Black and Brown communities.”

 Dorman added that the commission has updated its longstanding objectives on environmental justice strategy and had recently updated its strategy with a focus on outreach efforts. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, walks back to his office following a vote in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 11, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Meetings on Thursday between U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and conservative lawmakers led to speculation he was about to walk away from the bipartisan spending agreement he signed off on just this past weekend — a decision that would greatly increase the chances of a partial government shutdown next week.

Also Thursday, Biden administration officials highlighted another urgent spending problem, warning that the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, better known as WIC, faces a major funding shortfall due to increased costs and participation. The gap in funding could mean states would have to turn to waiting lists for those who want to enroll, administration officials said on a conference call with reporters.

At the Capitol, a small bloc of House GOP lawmakers who are frustrated with Johnson for brokering the spending deal with Democrats met with the speaker on the next steps in the government funding process.

While the spending deal is seen by many as a major step forward in moving toward consensus following months of tumult, certain GOP lawmakers want to see changes or possibly additions.

Those talks led to considerable confusion as to whether Johnson was considering a shift in the spending deal.

“Let me tell you what’s going on,” Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, told reporters outside his office.

“We’re having thoughtful conversations about funding options and priorities. We had a cross section of members in today. We’ll continue having cross sections of members in,” Johnson explained. “And while those conversations are going on, I’ve made no commitments. So if you hear otherwise it’s just simply not true. We’re looking forward to those conversations.”

Democrats and some Republican lawmakers expressed concern that Johnson might switch course just days before a government funding deadline that comes more than three months into the fiscal year.

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said Thursday afternoon that her staff told her “there are rumors about that,” though she hadn’t heard from Johnson on the issue.

“I certainly hope that’s not true because it increases the chances of a government shutdown,” Collins said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said that senators would continue negotiations with the House based on the agreement for total spending levels that he and Johnson announced Sunday.

“Look, we have a topline agreement,” Schumer said. “Everybody knows to get anything done it has to be bipartisan. So we’re going to continue to work to pass a CR and avoid a shutdown.”

CR stands for continuing resolution, the name often given to the short-term spending bill that Congress approves to give themselves more time to negotiate agreement on the full-year spending bills.

Congress has passed two of those bills so far for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 and the Senate is on track to vote on a third CR next week ahead of the Jan. 19 funding deadline for some of the annual bills.

Womack: A ‘flawed strategy’

Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, hadn’t heard directly from Johnson about whether he planned to withdraw from the spending agreement as of Thursday afternoon.

“I’m doing my job according to the agreement we have and I’m moving forward,” Murray said.

That spending agreement would provide $886.3 billion in defense and $772.7 billion in domestic discretionary spending for the current fiscal year, which began back on Oct. 1.

Arkansas Republican Rep. Steve Womack said Thursday afternoon that he expected to hear soon if Johnson was considering walking away from the topline deal, though he said that wouldn’t be wise.

“Renegotiating for purposes of appeasing a group of people, 100% of whom you’re not going to have, in my opinion, could be a flawed strategy,” Womack said, referring to the conservatives who have been calling for Johnson to scuttle the agreement.

That group of especially conservative Republicans, many of whom are members of the far-right Freedom Caucus, rarely, if ever, vote for spending bills. And it’s unlikely that they would vote for any full-year bills that can garner support in the Democratic Senate, let alone President Joe Biden’s signature.

Maryland Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, the former House Democratic leader, said that if Johnson were to walk away from the spending deal it would affect his ability to negotiate agreements in the future.

“You can only do that so many times and have any credibility or respect for the way you do business,” Hoyer said.

House Republicans, Hoyer said, have remained a “deeply divided, divisive and dysfunctional party” despite removing their former speaker and electing Johnson to the role.

Congress must pass some sort of spending bill before Jan. 19, otherwise the departments and agencies funded by the Agriculture, Energy-Water, Military Construction-VA and Transportation-HUD spending measures would enter a shutdown.

The remaining departments and agencies funded through the annual appropriations process would shut down on Feb. 2 if the House and Senate haven’t come to agreement on either a short-term spending bill or the full-year bills before that deadline.

The Senate is on track to vote on a stopgap spending bill next week that would keep the federal government funded a bit longer. Schumer took steps Thursday to set up a procedural vote Tuesday that will require at least 60 senators to advance it toward final passage. The details of that stopgap spending bill haven’t been released.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said during a Thursday press briefing that House Republicans “need to keep their word,” on the spending deal agreement that Johnson made with Democrats over the weekend.

“We cannot have a shutdown,” she said. “That is their basic duty, to keep the government open.”

WIC ‘a ship heading towards an iceberg’

Even if Congress does pass a stopgap measure to keep the government open, the federal program to provide nutrition assistance to children would face a considerable funding shortfall that could have disastrous effects for some who depend on the program.

WIC provides nutrition assistance to about 6.7 million infants, young children and pregnant and postpartum women per month, but could not continue that pace without a funding increase, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told reporters Thursday.

State administrators may soon be faced with difficult choices if Congress does not approve additional spending to account for increased food costs and growing participation, Vilsack and Washington state’s program director Paul Throne said Thursday.

“With rising caseloads, increased food costs and level funding, WIC is a ship heading towards an iceberg,” Throne said.

The federal government spent about $7.5 billion on WIC in fiscal 2023, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

If the USDA and states continued to provide benefits for everyone who qualifies, and Congress does not increase funding, “it would result in a billion-dollar shortfall,” about six weeks’ worth of the program, Vilsack said.

“A funding shortfall of this magnitude presents states with a difficult and untenable decision in terms of how to manage the program,” he said.

To cut costs, states may divert some qualified participants to waiting lists, Vilsack said. Under the program’s rules, postpartum women who are not breastfeeding would be the first placed on waiting lists, then children from 1 to 5 years old without high-risk medical issues, followed by all program participants without high-risk medical issues.

Throne said turning away applicants in need would have “serious” consequences, leaving young children hungry and pregnant women without access to health screenings.

The Washington state program needs additional federal funding to meet its needs, Throne said.

“People are spending more of their WIC benefits, which is a good thing,” Throne said. “But after nearly four years of rising caseloads, my budget is stretched, and I project that I will soon be asking for more help from USDA to feed our 131,000 participants. I’m afraid that this year I may no longer have the budget to serve everyone.”

Vilsack called for Congress to “fully fund” WIC this month.

The first two continuing resolutions of the fiscal year authorized state programs to spend at faster rates to meet the needs of all applicants, but didn’t supply any additional funding.

By not updating spending amounts to reflect higher costs, Congress is putting the program on a path to fail, Vilsack said.

“Through the last two recent continuing resolutions, Congress has indicated to the USDA, the states and the WIC beneficiaries that we should spend current funding actually at a faster rate than Congress has provided funding in order to be able to serve everyone who is eligible” through March, he said. “But Congress hasn’t provided the funds to cover the program once those resources run out.”

A third continuing resolution would keep that imbalance in place for longer, adding to the “major shortages” in funding states would face at the end of fiscal 2024,” Vilsack said.

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.  

D. John Sauer, former solicitor general of Missouri, represented Donald Trump before an appeals court panel on Jan. 9, 2024. Sauer is pictured here testifying during a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on July 20, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump appeared in federal court Tuesday seeking immunity from charges that he schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and knowingly fed lies to supporters who turned violent on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump, who is leading polls in the 2024 Republican presidential primary field, watched while his attorney D. John Sauer was grilled by a panel of judges as he argued that the former president is shielded from criminal prosecution because he acted in an official capacity. Trump in a brief press conference later suggested a ruling against his immunity claim would spur “bedlam” from his supporters.

The former president arrived at the courtroom minutes before the proceedings with his team of lawyers and sat mostly expressionless, taking no notes, while Sauer answered questions from a three-judge all-female panel, according to reporters inside the courtroom. Dozens of other journalists watched a live feed from a media room for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse.

Presiding Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs fired question after question to Sauer for roughly 40 minutes as he argued that Trump’s acts leading up to and on Jan. 6 were “official” and that his eventual acquittal by the U.S. Senate protects him from double jeopardy.

Trump was impeached by the U.S. House for inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6.

The decision by the appeals judges — Henderson, appointed under President George H. W. Bush, and the others recent President Joe Biden appointees — is likely to land in the U.S. Supreme Court, where a ruling could have significant implications for presidential liability.

Under questioning, Sauer — who previously served as Missouri’s solicitor general under Attorneys General Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt — told the appeals panel that “to authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a Pandora’s box (from) which this nation may never recover.”

The judges questioned whether a president’s actions while in office, no matter the legality, would be immune from criminal prosecution.

“You’re saying a president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival,” Pan said to Sauer.

Sauer conceded that selling military secrets “strikes me as something that might not be held to be an official act.”

Pan replied that Sauer’s concession undermines the Trump team’s argument that the government’s separation of powers guarantees the judiciary cannot hold the executive branch accountable.

“Given that you’re conceding that presidents can be criminally prosecuted under certain circumstances, doesn’t that narrow the issues before us to ‘Can a president be prosecuted without first being impeached and convicted?’” Pan said.

“Your separation of powers argument falls away, your policy arguments fall away if you concede that a president can be criminally prosecuted under some circumstances,” Pan said.

Henderson, questioning whether Trump’s actions can be defended as official acts, said, “I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate (federal law).”

Government’s case

Arguing for the U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant Special Counsel James Pearce described the potential for an “awfully scary” and “frightening” future if presidents could be completely immune from criminal prosecution.

Pearce rebuffed the notion that “floodgates” would open for cases against presidents.

“This investigation doesn’t reflect that we are going to see a sea change of vindictive tit for tat prosecutions in the future. I think it reflects the fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here,” Pearce said.

Trump could be seen shaking his head in disagreement at the comment, according to reporters in the room.

“If as I understood my friend on the other side is to say here, a president orders his SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigns, for example, before an impeachment, (it’s) not a criminal act. I think that’s an extraordinarily frightening future,” Pearce said during his roughly 20 minutes of questioning.

In his five-minute rebuttal, Sauer said a United States in which a president is “very, very, very seldom prosecuted because they have to be impeached and convicted first is the one we’ve lived under for 235 years. That’s not a frightening future, that’s our republic.”

Sauer said the criminal charges against Trump are now creating “a situation where we have the prosecution of the political opponent who’s leading in every poll in the presidential election next year and is being prosecuted by the administration that he’s seeking to replace.”

The three-judge panel concluded oral arguments after an hour and 15 minutes and did not indicate when judges would release a decision.

Trump calls for immunity, warns of ‘bedlam‘

In brief remarks following the hearing at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Washington, which was a Trump-branded property until his business sold the lease in 2022, Trump said presidents should have legal immunity, proclaimed his innocence and hinted his supporters would create more unrest if he were prosecuted.

Biden was using federal prosecutions to damage his chief rival politically, Trump said.

“This is the way they’re going to try to win,” he said. “And that’s not the way it goes. There’ll be bedlam in the country. It’s a very bad thing, it’s a very bad precedent. As we’ve said, it’s the opening of a Pandora’s box. It’s a very sad thing that’s happened with this whole situation.

“When they talk about threat to democracy, that’s your real threat to democracy and I feel that as a president, you have to have immunity,” Trump added.

The remarks drew on a strategy the Trump campaign has employed for months to use the former president’s myriad legal troubles to boost his electoral standing by framing him as a victim of political persecution.

Trump suggested that he was being prosecuted for official acts related to curbing voter fraud and repeated debunked claims that the 2020 election was decided by fraudulent votes.

“I did nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong,” he added. “I’m working for the country.”

Trump spoke for just more than seven minutes and did not take questions.

Trump indictment

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in December denied Trump’s motion to dismiss his case based on presidential immunity.

U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to immediately take the case, bypassing the appeals level, but the justices declined.

A federal grand jury indicted Trump in August for interfering in election results following the November 2020 presidential contest.

The indictment accuses Trump of conspiring with attorneys, a U.S. Department of Justice official and a political consultant, all unnamed, to organize fake electors for Trump from seven key states that Biden in fact won. Those states included Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The indictment also outlined Trump’s pressure campaign on former Vice President Mike Pence to reject electors from those states during his ceremonial role of certifying the election results on Jan. 6, 2021.

Leading up to that date, the indictment recounts, Trump knowingly fed a stream of lies to his supporters that he won the election, igniting a rally during which he spoke on Jan. 6, 2021 and culminating in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. The official four charges against Trump include conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

Both Colorado and Maine concluded that Donald Trump violated the 14th Amendment’s Civil War-era insurrection clause on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore cannot seek elected office (Mark Wilson/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — On the cusp of a 2024 election season like none other in U.S. history, former President Donald Trump’s legal and political worlds are set to converge.

Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday will argue before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. that he is immune from prosecution for actions he’s accused of taking while in office — less than a week before Iowa Republicans congregate in town halls and church basements for their first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses.

If Trump disagrees with the decision at the appeals level, he is expected to escalate his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose decision could have wide-ranging implications if the justices take the case, a likely possibility.

That request would mark the second time Trump has petitioned the high court ahead of the election. Last week Trump asked the justices — one-third of whom he appointed — to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to strike his name from the ballot, citing his role on Jan. 6, 2021. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case and set legal arguments for Feb. 8.

Trump has appealed a similar decision in Maine, but at a state court level.

Both Colorado and Maine concluded that Trump violated the 14th Amendment’s Civil War-era insurrection clause on Jan. 6, 2021, and therefore cannot seek elected office.

The nation’s 45th commander-in-chief, vying to again occupy the Oval Office, faces 91 criminal charges spread across four federal and state indictments, is the subject in a string of civil suits and sits in limbo over whether his name can remain on primary ballots in Colorado and Maine. At the same time, the primary season will kick off with Iowa’s caucuses on Jan. 15, quickly followed by the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 23 and a long lineup of state contests through the spring.

Polls show Trump holding a commanding lead in the Republican presidential primary, and the highly polarized political climate suggests he won’t lose much support among GOP voters even as his legal troubles intensify, experts said. Trump, buoyed by his supporters, has so far shown a remarkable talent for turning his scandals to his political advantage.

Even a small shift among general election voters, though, could have a significant impact on the general election, which may be decided by tens of thousands of votes in swing states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin.

While much lesser scandals have sunk presidential bids in previous eras, Trump’s message has been effective in a deeply divided country, Kathleen Dolan, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, said in an interview.

Rather than seeing criminal allegations as disqualifying, Trump’s base views the prosecutions as evidence to support Trump’s claims of political corruption that only he can fix.

“He benefits enormously — and has benefited enormously since 2016 — from the polarization that exists in the country,” she said.

“There are people on the right who see him being persecuted by the government for political purposes,” she added. “If you believe that about him, and you believe that the Biden administration is trying to destroy him through the legal system, that’s going to help solidify his appeal.”

Representatives for the Trump campaign did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Presidential immunity?

Key oral arguments on Trump’s immunity are scheduled for Tuesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Court documents filed ahead of the date show that Trump’s attorneys will assert that the former president has criminal immunity for his “official acts.”

Trump posted Monday on his media platform Truth Social that he plans to attend the hearing.

A lower court in December denied Trump’s claim that he cannot be prosecuted on four federal criminal charges accusing him of working with co-conspirators to subvert the 2020 presidential election results that declared Joe Biden the winner.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan set Trump’s election interference trial for March 4, just one day before the election year’s so-called Super Tuesday, when more than a dozen states will hold their presidential primaries.

However, that trial date is likely to be postponed as the Supreme Court considers the question of presidential immunity, adding uncertainty to Trump’s legal and campaign calendars.

U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading two cases against Trump, had already requested the Supreme Court bypass the appeals level and quickly settle the question, but the justices declined.

Trump’s team of lawyers argued in their brief to the appeals court that language in the U.S. Constitution prevents Trump from criminal prosecution, maintaining the country’s “234-year unbroken tradition of not prosecuting Presidents for official acts, despite vociferous calls to do so from across the political spectrum, provides powerful evidence of it.”

Attorneys, including John Lauro, Todd Blanche and John Sauer, wrote in the 41-page brief filed Jan. 2 that because executive power is “exclusively vested in the President,” the judicial branch “cannot sit in criminal judgment” over his or her official acts.

They further lean on the Constitution’s impeachment judgment clause and the “principles of double jeopardy” to say that because Trump was impeached for his actions related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, but later acquitted by the Senate, he cannot be criminally tried on federal charges accusing him of interfering in the 2020 presidential election results.

Critics say those arguments are “misguided and without foundation,” as put by former Trump administration White House Special Counsel Ty Cobb, who was among 16 constitutional lawyers, former prosecutors, and former elected officials to file an amicus brief to the appeals court opposing Trump’s argument.

“This is a specious appeal done solely for delay,” Cobb told reporters Jan. 4 during a virtual press conference.

Norm Eisen, a former Obama White House official and co-counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, told reporters that Trump’s argument for presidential immunity was “abhorrent to American law.”

“If Donald Trump were to be afforded the form of immunity that he seeks as a former president, the election to the presidency would serve as a get-out-of-jail-free card,” Eisen said. “That would allow the Oval Office to become the setting for a crime spree. That is not the American idea.”

Olivia Troye, former special advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism for Vice President Mike Pence, said the matter should be settled “as soon as possible.”

“We need a decision on this,” Troye, who joined Cobb and Eisen in signing the amicus brief, said Thursday.

Mixing court cases and fundraising

Trump has skillfully used the allegations against him as a boon to his campaign, repeating, without evidence, that the prosecutions are baseless attempts by the establishment to undercut his movement, political observers said.

Trump routinely comments on his criminal cases in fundraising pitches and other campaign material.

On Jan. 2, Trump’s campaign released a vitriolic statement after his lawyers filed a brief requesting to hold special counsel Smith in contempt of court for filing a motion in trial court while Trump’s presidential immunity appeal is pending.

Campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in an email to supporters that Smith “unilaterally decided to disobey the stay order and continue with his harassing litigation, all done in order to keep parroting the pathetic Biden Campaign’s corrupt talking points in the name of election interference.”

“As a result, President Trump is seeking to hold Deranged Jack in contempt of Court,” Cheung wrote, using a derogatory nickname for Smith also often used by Trump.

While not one of his criminal cases, Trump’s campaign is also attempting to energize his base around keeping his name on the Colorado ballot. The campaign sent a message Jan. 5 urging voters to “Help win the Supreme Court battle to save your right to vote,” and asked them to contribute in amounts ranging from $24 to $250.

Because of the polarized political environment, most Republican primary voters are unlikely to be swayed by Trump’s legal problems, said Larry Jacobs, the director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance in the Hubert H. Humphrey School and the Department of Political Science at the University of Minnesota.

But that could change in a general election, where even a slight shift away from Trump among the relatively few swing voters could be determinative, he said.

“It’s a mistake to say, ‘Oh, Republicans are going to turn on Trump,’” Jacobs said. “No. The partisanship guarantees they won’t turn on Trump. But if you get a small percent in a divided country, that will be the difference.”

Commanding primary lead

The string of indictments against Trump last year appeared to do little to hurt his prospects in the Republican primary, where he still leads national polls by nearly 50 percentage points over his closest rivals, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

Early-state nominating contests this month will provide the first firm data on where the race stands. Trump’s lead is slightly smaller in Iowa — about 30 percentage points — than in national surveys, and Haley holds an outside chance of winning New Hampshire’s primary eight days later, where polls show her within 5 points of Trump.

Part of Trump’s appeal in the primary is the sense that his renomination is inevitable, Jacobs said. If early results challenge that assumption, the shape of the race could change, he said.

Dolan noted that despite large polling leads, Trump has not yet won a single vote in the 2024 election cycle and there’s still some degree of uncertainty around primary results.

“Polls don’t vote,” she said.

“These early states can have some surprises,” Christopher Stout, a political scientist at Oregon State University, said. “Haley could win or someone could surprise Trump in Iowa or New Hampshire and change the framing.”

Yet more legal cases

The March 4 trial on election interference charges is the earliest scheduled criminal proceeding against the former president, but others could soon follow.

A four-count indictment in that case accuses Trump of seeking to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Trump conspired to recruit false slates of electors, knowingly lied to the public about non-existent election fraud and encouraged supporters to obstruct the election certification in a violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

That case is just one of four pending criminal trials in which he’s a defendant.

All four indictments were charged last year and all could have trials begin in 2024. Three cases are scheduled to begin trials in the coming months, though those dates could change.

Trump is accused in New York state court of falsifying business records by reporting hush money payments as legal expenses.

According to that state indictment, Trump’s attorney and personal fixer, Michael Cohen, paid adult film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to stay silent during the 2016 campaign about an alleged affair between her and Trump. Trump then repaid Cohen through his business, but recorded the transactions as legitimate legal expenses.

That trial is scheduled to begin March 25.

Trump also faces federal charges that he mishandled classified documents as president. That trial, brought in a federal court in South Florida, is scheduled to begin May 20, though U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has pushed back some pretrial deadlines that could indicate the trial itself will be delayed.

Trump was also indicted in Georgia state court on election interference charges. The Georgia indictment focuses on an alleged conspiracy to overturn the state’s election results. A trial date has not been set in that case, though the district attorney has requested an August date.

A conviction in any of the cases before the election would not disqualify Trump from the presidency.

But it’s an unsettled legal question if he could pardon himself in a second term that could lead to yet more time in the courts.

“The Supreme Court would have to decide whether or not presidential pardon powers in Article II are absolute,” Stout said. “Can an individual pardon themselves? I anticipate that would lead to a host of other legal fights that would happen after his election.”

Trump also faces a slew of civil lawsuits.

Trump and his company are snarled in a civil case in the New York State Supreme Court that could end with hundreds of millions in fines for the former president. The company stands accused of inflating the value of assets as a means to secure better standing with insurers and banks.

Meanwhile, a civil defamation trial against the former president is set to begin Jan. 16 in a Manhattan federal district court. Writer E. Jean Carroll, who in 2019 publicly accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s, sued Trump for defaming her after her accusation.

Trump tried to claim presidential immunity in the civil defamation case, but was denied in December.

A jury in May already found Trump liable for sexual abuse of Carroll stemming from a 1996 incident, which Trump denies. The court awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Trump has appealed the decision.

Former President Donald Trump, campaigning over the weekend, referred to immigrants as “poisoning the blood of our country.” He is pictured here speaking on May 28, 2022 in Casper, Wyoming (Chet Strange/Getty Images).

As leaders in Washington negotiate a bipartisan immigration deal, former President Donald Trump used inflammatory language to demonize immigrants during a Saturday campaign speech in New Hampshire that echoed Adolf Hitler.

Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president in next year’s election, said that immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” He pledged to toughen immigration laws, including by reinstating a travel ban from “terror-plagued countries” and requiring “strong ideological screening” for immigrants in the country without authorization.

“They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” he told his supporters in Durham, New Hampshire, referring to immigrants.

“That’s what they’ve done. They’ve poisoned mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world. Nobody’s even looking at it.”

Hitler used similar language about Jews “poison[ing] the blood of others,” in “Mein Kampf,” his 1925 manifesto.

Trump also praised authoritarian leaders in other countries, including North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, whom he called “very nice” and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whom he called “highly respected.” And he endorsed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s criticism of President Joe Biden.

New Hampshire’s primary is Jan. 23, following the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 15. Trump leads in polling in both states.

In a written statement, Biden’s reelection campaign said Trump “channeled” past and present dictators.

“Tonight Donald Trump channeled his role models as he parroted Adolf Hitler, praised Kim Jong Un, and quoted Vladimir Putin while running for president on a promise to rule as a dictator and threaten American democracy,” campaign spokesperson Ammar Moussa said in a written statement.

A spokesman for the Trump campaign did not respond to a message seeking comment Monday.

Trump’s remarks came as U.S. Senate leaders and the White House seek to work out an agreement on changes to immigration policy as part of a larger deal that includes a $100 billion supplemental request to fund aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and U.S. border security.

‘Dog-whistling’

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is running in the GOP primary on an anti-Trump platform, called the comments “disgusting” during an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday.

“He’s disgusting,” Christie said. “And what he’s doing is dog-whistling to Americans who feel absolutely under stress and strain from the economy and the conflicts across the world. He’s dog-whistling to blame it on people from areas that don’t look like us.”

Christie added that leading Republicans who continued to support Trump were complicit. He noted that almost 100 members of Congress have endorsed Trump and that presidential rival Nikki Haley of South Carolina called Trump fit to be president.

“Nikki Haley should be ashamed of herself,” he said. “She’s part of the problem because she’s enabling him.”

The Haley campaign did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Authoritarian rhetoric

Trump has consistently degraded immigrants since his entrance into national politics in the 2016 presidential race and it continues to be among his most prominent themes as the campaign intensifies heading into 2024.

In the run-up to the 2016 election, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” and issued an executive order a week after entering office to block travel from certain Muslim-majority countries.

The executive order, and a successor, framed the policy as a national security issue in response to terror threats, but federal courts still blocked it for violating religious freedoms and other civil liberties. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld parts of the order, but Biden revoked it in full on his first day in office.

In recent weeks, Trump has made a string of comments that suggest he sees himself as an authoritarian leader.

In a November speech, he described his political opponents as “vermin,” another term used by Hitler and his World War II ally Benito Mussolini of Italy.

And in a Fox News town hall this month, Trump responded to a request to dispel fears he would be a dictator in a second term by saying he would be a dictator only on his first day in office to take measures to control the border and expand fossil fuel development.

He emphasized that pledge Saturday.

“My first day back at the White House, I will terminate every open-borders policy of the Biden administration, stop the invasion of our Southern border and begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” he said.

Republicans often use the word “invasion” to characterize the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has seen an increase in encounters with migrants at the U.S. Southern border, according to its data. In fiscal year 2022, there were nearly 2.4 million encounters with migrants, and in fiscal year 2023, which ended on Oct. 1, there were nearly 2.5 million encounters with migrants at the Southern border.

Trump’s rhetoric throughout Saturday’s speech cast the former president as the leader of a “righteous crusade.”

“This is the greatest political movement in the history of our country, it really is,” he said. “We’re engaged in a righteous crusade to liberate this nation from a corrupt political class that is waging war on American democracy like never before.

“We’ve never seen anything like this before,” he continued. “If you put me back in the White House, their reign will be over and America will be a free nation once again. We are not a free nation.”

The J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building is seen on January 28, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images).

An FBI official testifying before a U.S. House panel on Tuesday questioned the process that led to the Biden administration choosing a Maryland location for a new bureau headquarters instead of a competing site in Virginia.

The General Service Administration rejected an advisory panel’s recommendation for a site in Springfield, Virginia, when it chose to plan a new FBI facility in Greenbelt, Maryland, said Nicholas Dimos, the assistant director of the FBI’s Finance and Facilities Division.

Dimos said the bureau was “surprised” to learn the GSA’s site selection authority for the project, Nina Albert, departed from an advisory panel’s findings and chose the Maryland site that benefited her prior employer — the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which owns the Greenbelt site. The agency operates transit in the District of Columbia and its suburbs, including bus and rail.

The recommendation from the panel of two GSA designees and one FBI designee was nonbinding — and the GSA was authorized to depart from it — but it was unusual, Dimos said. His comments came during a hearing by the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.

“Within the FBI’s procurement shop, this is exceedingly rare,” he said.

A subsequent FBI review of the GSA decision showed further issues, including that the GSA prioritized certain measures in a way that was inconsistent with a previously published site selection plan, and that the GSA used “outside information” to inform the decision, Dimos said.

Those changes “repeatedly benefited the Greenbelt site and disadvantaged the Springfield site,” he said.

“The site selection plan gave the (Albert) authority to come to a different conclusion than the panel,” Dimos said. “But the consistent, one-directional nature of the changes favoring Greenbelt caused concerns for the FBI.”

Albert was invited to testify at the hearing, but declined, subcommittee Chairman Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, said. Albert is now acting deputy mayor for Washington, D.C.

Perry said that the panel may escalate efforts to compel her testimony.

“We will be sending her a letter to continue to seek the answers we need,” he said. “And we’ll have to consider other options available to the subcommittee so that we can hear her perspective in the future, which will be very important to getting to the bottom of this issue.”

Elliot Doomes, the commissioner for public buildings service at the GSA, stood by the agency’s decision, praising the Maryland site’s access to transit, and the certainty associated with the costs and timeline of its construction.

He denied that the agency’s process was biased for Greenbelt.

“The site selection authority did not make changes in favor of a specific site,” Doomes said.

Battle between states

Dimos, Doomes and several lawmakers on the panel agreed on the need for a new FBI headquarters — though Perry said he didn’t necessarily agree — citing the condition of the current J. Edgar Hoover Building, between the White House and U.S. Capitol in the center of Washington.

The building is in disrepair and its urban location poses security risks, they said.

“The status quo is a drain on taxpayer dollars to sustain a failing … facility that doesn’t meet the needs of our workforce or mission,” Dimos said.

“It is a counterintelligence disaster just waiting to happen,” subcommittee ranking Democrat Dina Titus of Nevada said. “And, as such, is a threat to our national security.”

A long-running process to find a new headquarters in the Washington region for the FBI has caused years of ill will between lawmakers representing the District of Columbia’s neighboring states.

The announcement last month that the GSA had chosen the Maryland site caused an outcry among the Virginia delegation. Marylanders have strongly defended it.

The GSA’s inspector general said in a Nov. 30 letter that his office would launch an evaluation of the decision-making process, spurred by concerns raised by Virginia Sen. Mark Warner.

Decision questioned

Perry, a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, said Tuesday the decision appeared political.

“The American people smell a rat here,” Perry said. “We’ve got to get to the bottom of what happened here, because this does not fulfill the FBI’s mission.”

Much of the skepticism from both parties Tuesday came from the divergence between the selection of Greenbelt and the advisory panel’s recommendation.

Asked by full committee ranking Democrat Rick Larsen of Washington how often the GSA departs from an advisory panel’s finding, Doomes said the agency doesn’t keep a comprehensive database but that “it’s happened a couple of times in the last 25 years.”

Doomes added that to this knowledge, those instances didn’t trigger an inspector general evaluation, as the FBI decision has.

Doomes said the Greenbelt site’s easy access to transit and cost certainty “reflect new government-wide directives and provide better taxpayer value.”

“Greenbelt provides the best access to transportation and is the most transit-accessible,” he said. “It provides the government with the greatest project-schedule certainty, offers the greatest opportunity to positively impact the Washington, D.C., region and has the lowest overall cost to taxpayers of all the three sites.”

The Springfield site has a warehouse and a “classified tenant” that would have to be moved before construction on an FBI facility could start, adding to the cost and timeline uncertainty if the government continued with that site, Doomes said.

Dimos, who agreed on the need for a new facility, said the FBI would prefer a site closer to downtown Washington to be more convenient to meet with the U.S. Justice Department and other partners outside of the bureau.

Perry criticized the selection criteria that included advancing equity and sustainability. Those criteria were set by Congress in a 2022 spending bill, but Perry said they should be removed.

“What we should be focused on here is the mission of the FBI and what best enhances that,” he said. “This is on Congress, but not one of these sites … services the mission of the FBI.”

Special Counsel Jack Smith delivers remarks on a recently unsealed indictment against former President Donald Trump at the Justice Department on June 9, 2023 in Washington, D.C. Smith in a separate election interference case on Monday, Dec. 11, 2023 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite a decision on Trump’s claims of presidential immunity (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to expedite a decision on former President Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in the 2020 election interference case.

Smith asked the justices to rule on a matter that ordinarily would first go to a lower federal appeals court, arguing that another layer of appellate action would likely mean the Supreme Court wouldn’t hear the case until its term beginning in fall 2024, delaying the trial even further.

Such a delay would push a Supreme Court decision into the heat of a general election, when Trump is favored to again be the Republican candidate for president.

A definitive answer from the Supreme Court would keep the trial slated to begin March 4, 2024, on schedule, Smith said.

“The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,” Smith wrote. “This is an extraordinary case.”

District court ruling

The case, one of four criminal proceedings the former president faces as he campaigns for another term in the White House, involves claims he sought to illegally overturn his reelection loss in 2020.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the case based on the argument that as a former president, he is protected from criminal prosecution and that he was already acquitted by the U.S. Senate in an impeachment trial.

Trump appealed that ruling last week to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, an intermediate venue between the district court and the Supreme Court, and asked the trial court to pause proceedings while the appeal is ongoing.

Trump’s legal team in early October filed a motion to dismiss the case based on presidential immunity.

The scheduling situation is similar to what courts faced as President Richard Nixon’s 1974 trial date on charges related to the Watergate scandal approached, Smith said Monday. In that case, the Supreme Court accepted prosecutors’ argument and expedited the appeal, he wrote, adding that the high court should make a similar ruling for Trump.

“It is of paramount public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved as expeditiously as possible — and, if respondent is not immune, that he receive a fair and speedy trial on these charges,” Smith wrote. “The public, respondent, and the government are entitled to nothing less.”

Prosecutors also asked the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court on Monday to expedite Trump’s appeal in that court if the Supreme Court declines to rule on the issue.

Election interference and other criminal charges

A federal grand jury indicted Trump in August on four counts for his alleged role in knowingly attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election results through a series of illegal actions and false statements that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The charges filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia included conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

The 45-page indictment details false statements that Trump and unnamed co-conspirators made about election results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and the subsequent fake electors scheme the group devised for those states.

The indictment also detailed Trump’s pressure campaign on former Vice President Mike Pence to “enlist” him in overturning election results.

Trump is facing four criminal cases as well as civil proceedings over his business matters in New York state as he leads in several polls ahead of the 2024 Republican presidential primary season. With less than five weeks left before the Iowa first-in-the-nation GOP presidential caucuses, a Des Moines Register/NBC News/Medicacom poll released Monday found Trump is the first choice of 51% of caucus-goers surveyed.

In addition to federal election fraud charges in Washington, D.C. scheduled for trial in March, Trump is facing another potential March criminal trial in New York state for alleged hush money payments to an adult film star.

The former president also faces a federal criminal trial in Florida in May over felony charges alleging he removed classified documents from the White House at the end of his presidency and improperly stored them at Mar-a-Lago, his South Florida estate.

A trial date has not been set for a Georgia indictment alleging that Trump and several co-defendants engaged in racketeering and criminal organization to interfere with 2020 presidential election results.

Attorneys for Trump did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Monday.

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump stands on stage before a campaign event on Nov. 11, 2023, in Claremont, New Hampshire, in which he called his political opponents “vermin" (Scott Eisen/Getty Images).

Former members of Congress are deeply concerned about political violence ahead of the 2024 presidential election, former Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama and former Rep. Barbara Comstock of Virginia said at a Thursday joint appearance sponsored by the liberal Center for American Progress and the nonpartisan McCain Institute.

Jones, a moderate Democrat who lost reelection in 2020, and Comstock, a moderate Republican who was defeated in 2018, said increased acceptance of political violence is seen across the political spectrum. But they laid much of the blame on former President Donald Trump and his supporters.

An October poll from the Public Religion Research Institute, a Washington-based independent research organization, found that 23% of respondents believe that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

That represented an increase from 15% in 2021 and was the first poll in the eight times the group has asked that question in which support has risen above 20%.

One-third of Republicans and 46% of people who believe the 2020 election was stolen from Trump agreed with the statement.

Comstock noted that antisemitism on some elite college campuses also represented a disturbing trend and Jones described a growing acceptance of violence “across the board.”

The country “seems to be splitting down the middle” politically, with each side believing the other is a threat to democracy, Jones said.

“They’re willing to accept some violence to protect” democracy, he said. “Trying to bridge that, between those two camps who would take up arms against each other for vastly different reasons but all in the name of saving democracy, really is, I think, a road to disaster, potentially.”

Trump central to growing rift

But they suggested the most direct and intentional threats appear to be coming from Trump and the movement he leads.

Jones, who was a U.S. attorney who prosecuted cases involving anti-Black violence before his election to the Senate, said there are politicians who continue to use “dog whistles,” or coded language their supporters understand as endorsements of violence.

Some leaders who use passionate rhetoric don’t necessarily mean to inspire violence, he said. But others do so intentionally, he added, making an indirect but unmistakable reference to Trump.

“Look, I believe there are some in this — who will go unnamed, but initials are D.T. — (who) have an intent,” Jones said. “I think they’ve had it before. They know exactly what they’re saying.

“How do we look at that?” he continued. “How do we talk when you’ve got political leaders that are out there who are literally calling for the execution of a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are calling their political opponents vermin that needs to be exterminated? That is a clear signal to folks.”

Trump used that language at a New Hampshire rally last month.

“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country,” he said.

Trump’s unfounded claims of election fraud, which inspired the attempt to stop the peaceful transition of presidential power in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, were a major driver of political division, Comstock, who opposed Trump in 2016, said.

Close legislative elections in Virginia this year did not inspire the same backlash as Trump’s 2020 reelection loss, she said, crediting Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin and the chairs of each state party for publicly accepting the election results and “not feeding into that paranoia.”

“Surprise: When Donald Trump’s not on the ballot, the voting all goes really securely and safely,” she said.

Lawmakers face death threats

Jones and Comstock cited a recent survey conducted by the University of Massachusetts for the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress showing that 84% of former members surveyed are concerned about the possibility of violence related to the presidential election.

Nearly half of the almost 300 respondents in the poll said they or their families received threats at least somewhat frequently while they were in office. Women and lawmakers of color reported higher instances, with 69% saying they’d experienced threats at least somewhat frequently.

And the problem may be worse for local government officials who lack the security available to members of Congress, Jones and Comstock said.

Comstock praised Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Gov. Brian Kemp, both Republicans, for “standing up” for frontline elections workers who received threats and abuse from Trump supporters after the 2020 election.

Maricopa County, Arizona, Supervisor Bill Gates did not receive the same support from Republicans in his state as he faced abuse in the wake of election losses by Trump and Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake, Comstock said.

“He’s just this local supervisor who doesn’t have the protections that we had in Congress and the Capitol Police,” she said. “So this was just a very abusive process.”

Gates and Raffensperger should be considered “heroes who are on the front lines” of defending democracy, Comstock said.

State and local elections officials have said they are having difficulty retaining and recruiting workers, as the people in those nonpolitical jobs have faced increased abuse from partisans.

Members of a U.S. House panel on Wednesday battled over what the United States should be doing to curb emissions. Shown is an electric car charging station (Getty Images).

Republicans on a U.S. House panel argued Wednesday against aggressive moves to meet carbon reduction goals, saying U.S. fossil fuel companies are working to make their products cleaner.

Democrats on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment, Manufacturing and Critical Minerals countered that to achieve further reductions, federal policies should be continued to encourage the development of renewable energy and consumer products such as electric vehicles.

Coming the day before the 28th annual United Nations climate conference was set to begin, members of the panel battled over the U.S. role in curbing emissions. The conference is often a venue for world leaders to discuss global solutions to climate change. President Joe Biden is not scheduled to attend this year’s conference.

Republicans argued that the United States was not as problematic for emissions as countries like China and should be allowed to continue developing cleaner uses of oil and gas, downplaying the need to transition away from those fuels.

U.S. fossil fuel companies have produced more energy in recent years while cutting emissions, several Republicans on the panel said.

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Johnson, an Ohio Republican, criticized Biden and congressional Democrats for demanding “a radical reordering of American society and a reduced standard of living” to meet climate goals.

“Becoming more prosperous and secure as a nation is possible while also decreasing emissions,” Johnson said. “We’ve proven it. We’ve done it. We don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

But Democrats said that progress on environmental goals, including air pollution, was achieved because of federal policies.

Subcommittee ranking Democrat Paul Tonko of New York said U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations and other federal policies drove major reductions in automotive emissions, and particulate matter, ozone and sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere.

“Innovation is often not possible without a mix of carrots and sticks,” he said. “There are countless examples of EPA rules playing a driving factor in emissions reductions.”

Standards and goals

Karl Hausker, a senior fellow with the World Resources Institute, an international environmental nonprofit, said the government’s role in developing a regulatory framework for industry was helpful in pushing the private sector to meet high standards.

“When we collectively decide to attack an environmental problem and reduce it, we set standards, we set performance goals and then the incredible scientific and engineering talent of the United States comes into play,” Hausker said.

Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat who is the ranking member of the full committee, said Republicans promoted a “polluters-over-people agenda,” and sought to undermine climate programs in recent infrastructure and climate laws and by opposing regulations.

Democrats also rejected the idea that fossil-fuel primacy was responsible for a growing economy. Federal spending and tax breaks to encourage renewable energy production, as envisioned in Democrats’ climate and policy law last year, would have several positive impacts on the economy, Pallone said.

“These policies are already creating new jobs, cutting costs for working families and advancing homegrown clean energy — all while tackling the climate crisis,” he said.

Ceding to China

Members of each party disagreed about how best to counter Chinese influence on energy production.

Republicans argued that transitioning to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar would benefit China, which produces many of the parts needed for renewable energy products.

“This forced transition will leave our economy dangerously dependent upon supply chains from China and make energy less affordable, less reliable for Americans,” committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Washington Republican, said.

China has poor environmental and labor standards and “does not share our concerns about climate change risks, nor our value of environmental stewardship,” Rodgers said.

“Moving to 100%, wind, solar and battery-powered energy, as some have proposed will cede our energy future to China, and could have perverse effects on increasing emissions,” she added. “We should instead be working to build on our remarkable legacy.”

China emits more greenhouse gases than the rest of the developed world, and its emissions increased this year, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an Iowa Republican, said. She criticized Biden administration policies that she said would promote Chinese industry.

“It’s problematic that the Biden administration is continually turning to the Chinese Communist Party to produce energy components,” she said.

Democrats countered that the world would be well served by a U.S. leadership role on climate.

“We need to demonstrate our nation’s commitment to standing with our allies in the fight against climate change,” Pallone said. “We’re out of time for denialism and obstruction. The science on climate change is indisputable.”

The agreement the U.S. and China reached this year on reduction targets for greenhouse gases was the first time China committed to reducing its emissions, Pallone added.

Rep. Debbie Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, said the U.S. was in danger of falling behind developing economies, such as China’s, if it cedes leadership in industries like electric vehicle and clean energy manufacturing.

“If we sit back and do nothing, what is the danger of letting countries like China lead?” asked Dingell, adding she would “never let them.”

Fifth-three percent of Missouri voters signed off on a constitutional amendment legalizing recreational marijuana on Nov. 8, 2022 (Carol Yepes/Getty Images).

The federal government unfairly penalizes state-legal marijuana businesses whose owners have been convicted of marijuana-related crimes, restricting them from loans and other banking tools, a group of U.S. Senate and House Democrats wrote to the Treasury Department asking for a change in policy.

The group of 20 lawmakers, who mostly represent states where recreational marijuana is legal, said in a Tuesday letter that 2014 guidance from the department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to put “red flags” on marijuana businesses hurts the businesses’ chances of securing banking services or loans.

The warnings from a federal regulator unfairly restrict access to a fast-growing industry that’s legal in many states, the lawmakers said.

“Under this red flag guidance, a marijuana business owner with a marijuana conviction may be permitted to participate in a state licensing program on paper, but in practice may be unable to access a bank loan to grow her business because she is considered a high-risk customer,” the lawmakers wrote.

The guidance disproportionately harms businesses owned by people of color, who are more likely to have a marijuana-related conviction, even though they are not more likely to have broken marijuana use laws, the letter reads.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Raphael Warnock of Georgia and Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon led the letter, according to a release from Warren’s office.

Other signers include Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith of Minnesota and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, and Rep. Val Hoyle of Oregon.

The group asked Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Director Andrea Gacki to update the guidance, which they noted predates many state laws legalizing recreational marijuana.

The update should allow people who have been pardoned or were convicted of an offense that is no longer considered a crime under their state’s law to have full access to financial services without a red flag from the federal government, the lawmakers wrote.

Messages seeking comment from the Treasury Department and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network were not returned Thursday.

Split among advocates

Access to banking is one of the challenges that marijuana-related businesses face, even as many states have moved to decriminalize or outright legalize recreational use in recent years and it has grown to be a multibillion-dollar industry.

Last year, 22 states brought in a combined $3.8 billion in tax revenue from marijuana sales, according to the advocacy group the Marijuana Policy Project. Recreational sales in Oregon alone are about $1 billion per year.

But because the banking system is largely federally regulated, and marijuana is still illegal at the national level, marijuana-related businesses have trouble gaining access to banking services such as small business loans.

That leaves would-be business owners without the necessary capital to start a business. Existing businesses may carry inordinate amounts of cash, leaving them more vulnerable to theft or robbery.

But efforts to only address issues around banking have split advocates of marijuana reform.

Booker, Wyden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York introduced a comprehensive marijuana overhaul bill last year, which would decriminalize the drug completely.

Booker and Warnock have opposed bipartisan attempts to deal only with access to financial services, arguing that such reforms would benefit big marijuana businesses and would be unfair to the largely Black and Latino people who still suffer the consequences of marijuana-related convictions in states where it has since become legal.

“My fear is that if we pass this legislation, if we greenlight this new industry and the fees and the profits to be made off of it without helping those communities, we will just make the comfortable more comfortable,” Warnock said at a September hearing on a bill to reform marijuana banking laws.

“And I see no historical evidence that suggests that when we do that we’ll go back and get those left behind,” he continued. “I don’t believe in trickle-down economics, and I don’t believe in trickle-down justice.”

The Senate Banking Committee approved the marijuana banking bill on a bipartisan 14-9 vote on Sept. 28. It has not received a floor vote.

Spokespeople for Warnock did not respond Thursday to messages seeking comment on the Treasury letter.

Booker and Schumer also opposed previous banking overhaul efforts, but Booker said that the addition to this year’s version of the bill, which he cosponsored, to provide states grants to help expunge marijuana convictions, made the bill worth supporting.

Spokespeople for Booker did not respond to a message seeking comment Thursday.

“I’m grateful to my colleagues for working with me to ensure key provisions were included in this bill that will increase access to capital for small and minority-owned businesses and increase banking services for underserved communities,” he said in a statement a week before the committee vote. “Even after this bill is passed, there will be a lot more work to do to reverse the many injustices of our nation’s failed marijuana policies.”

Thousands of people attend the March for Israel on the National Mall on Nov. 14, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

Members of both parties from both chambers of Congress spoke to tens of thousands of supporters of Israel in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, pledging to continue support for the U.S. ally’s war against Hamas even as concerns about the destruction in Gaza rise.

Many speakers, including family members of Israeli and Israeli American victims, at the two-hour rally on the National Mall related horrors that Hamas inflicted on Oct. 7. The terrorist attacks killed about 1,200 and the militant group took more than 200 hostages.

As Israel responds to that attack with a counteroffensive that has killed more than 11,000 in Gaza, according to the territory’s health ministry, congressional leaders said the U.S. would remain committed to Israel.

“The United States has always stood with Israel,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, told the crowd. “And we will do everything to see that that never, ever changes.”

Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in the country, pledged the enactment of a full aid package to Israel. The Biden administration proposed $14 billion in military and humanitarian assistance as part of a supplemental funding package.

“We will not rest until you get the assistance you need,” Schumer said.

Bipartisan commitment to Israel 

Following Schumer, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York and Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican who is the fourth-highest ranking member of her caucus, spoke.

Jeffries praised the longstanding bipartisan commitment to Israel and said House Democrats supported Biden’s aid request.

Johnson said backing for Israel was one of the few issues that united members of Congress across the ideological spectrum.

But he also raised some points where disagreements do exist, saying that “calls for a cease-fire are outrageous.” Some progressive House Democrats and advocacy groups have suggested a cease-fire to halt casualties to noncombatants.

As Johnson rejected that idea Wednesday, the crowd cheered and began chanting, “No cease-fire.”

Johnson also dismissed the pro-Palestinian slogan “from the river to the sea,” which many interpret to be a call to eliminate the state of Israel. He said that he believed many college students who use the phrase likely don’t realize they are calling for the elimination of Israel.

But in an apparent reference to U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, Johnson said it was “unacceptable” for an elected official to promote the phrase.

“It is unacceptable for any political leader in this nation to give credence to this dangerous rhetoric,” he said.

The House censured Tlaib last week after she tweeted a video with that slogan and called it “an aspirational call for freedom” and peace. Tlaib is the only Palestinian American member of the House.

Ernst recounted meetings on her trip to Israel shortly after the attack, where she met with victims and family members who urged her to extend U.S. support.

“In every meeting, the message was abundantly clear: ‘Do not let the United States cower when the world starts to. Stand steadfastly in your solidarity,’” she said. “So we’re here today as Republicans and as Democrats to assure you, we will not shrink back and shudder in fear.”

Several speakers, including the lawmakers, also condemned domestic antisemitism, which they said has risen since the war started.

“There should not be a shred of antisemitism in our country,” Ernst said.

“In the halls of Congress and college campuses, this rise of antisemitism must be stopped,” Johnson said.

After the lawmakers’ appearance, several family members of hostages spoke, describing their experience in emotional terms.

“We hostage families have lived the last 39 days in slow-motion torment,” said Rachel Goldberg, whose son, Hersh Goldberg-Polin, was kidnapped from a music festival in southern Israel on Oct. 7. “We all have third-degree burns on our souls. Our hearts are bruised and seeping with misery.”

Pressure to reduce violence

The rally came as U.S. policymakers are seeing increasing calls to pressure Israel to reduce or end violence in the Gaza Strip, which is home to about 2 million people.

The social justice group Center for Constitutional Rights and Palestinian human rights organizations sued the U.S. government in federal court Monday, asking the court to block the Biden administration from providing more weapons and other support to Israel.

U.S. aid for Israel amounts to a breach of the nation’s “legal duty to prevent genocide,” according to the Center for Constitutional Rights.

After initially strongly backing Israel, administration officials in recent weeks, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have been more open in calls for Israel to rein in civilian casualties.

At a press conference earlier Tuesday, Schumer said his three priorities for the Israel-Hamas war were to “radically reduce the presence of Hamas,” free hostages the group still holds and to minimize civilian casualties.

Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., left, talks with Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., as they arrive for an Oct. 31 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Capitol Hill. Manchin announced Thursday he will not run for reelection in 2024. Tester is running and is one of the Senate’s more vulnerable incumbents. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Soldiers from Ft. Lee, Virginia help mark Veterans Day ceremonies on Nov. 11, 2011, at the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. Veterans Day in the United States honors those who have served in the nation’s military and also coincides with the anniversary of the conclusion of hostilities on the western front in World War I. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Republican presidential candidates (L-R) former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy participate in the NBC News Republican Presidential Primary Debate Wednesday in Miami. Five presidential hopefuls squared off in the third Republican primary debate as former U.S. President Donald Trump, currently facing indictments in four locations, declined again to participate. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Five Republican candidates for president tussled over support for Ukraine and abortion policy at a debate in Miami Wednesday evening, while the leading contender for the nomination, former President Donald Trump, sought Latino votes in an event across town.

Trump, who consistently garners more than 50% in polls of Republican voters, once again declined to participate in what was the third debate of the primary race, holding his own rally in nearby Hialeah instead.

That left five candidates, the fewest of any GOP debate so far this cycle, vying to be the lead alternative to the former president in the two-hour debate aired by NBC News. The moderators were the network’s Lester Holt and Kristen Welker, joined by Salem Radio Network’s conservative host Hugh Hewitt.

The candidates — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and U.S. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina — largely agreed that the United States should support Israel’s war against Hamas, calling for aggressive action from the key U.S. ally in the Middle East.

But they showed sharp divisions on other issues, highlighted by a growing rift between DeSantis and Haley, whose position in the race has improved in recent weeks largely at the expense of the home-state governor, and a continuing quarrel between Haley and Ramaswamy that descended into personal attacks.

At one point, as each accused the other of being too friendly to China, Ramaswamy pointed out Haley’s daughter has an account on Chinese-owned TikTok. “You might want to take care of your family first,” he said.

“Leave my daughter out of your voice,” Haley responded, adding, “You’re just scum.”

On abortion, all of the candidates declared themselves against abortion rights. But the day after Republicans saw setbacks in state elections where abortion rights were central issues, Haley, Christie and DeSantis said the question would largely be left to states. Scott said he’d support a national ban.

In Hialeah, Trump focused his attention on Biden and Democrats — comparing the current administration to regimes in communist-led countries.

“If you don’t want to let the communists destroy America like they destroyed Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and so many other countries, you need to send the message by voting crooked Joe Biden … and every last Democrat, get them the hell out of office,” Trump told the crowd.

Trump’s shadow looms

In the first round of the questions, candidates were asked why GOP voters should support them over the race’s frontrunner.

DeSantis launched into a short stump speech that touched on inflation and border security.

He then criticized Trump for not appearing at the debates and said Republicans were losing elections with Trump as the most recognizable leader in the party.

“Donald Trump’s a lot different guy than he was in 2016,” he said. “He owes it to you to be on this stage and explain why he should get another chance. He should explain why he didn’t have Mexico pay for the border wall. He should explain why he racked up so much debt. He should explain why he didn’t drain the swamp.”

Haley said Trump performed well as president, but that new leaders should address new challenges.

“He was the right president at the right time,” she said. “I don’t think he’s the right president now.”

Haley also criticized Trump for allowing the national debt to grow and said he “used to be right about Ukraine and foreign issues. now he’s gotten weak in the knees.”

Christie continued strong criticism of the former president, a consistent message in a campaign that has struggled to gain traction with a GOP electorate still largely loyal to Trump, who is facing criminal indictments in four cases.

“Anybody who’s going to be spending the next year and a half of their life focusing on keeping themselves out of jail and courtrooms cannot lead this party or this country,” Christie said.

At the Trump rally 15 miles away, the crowd cheered when the former president asked if it was the right decision to not participate in the debates.

“Somebody said, one of those dumber ones, ‘He doesn’t have the courage to stand up’ – Well, listen, I’m standing in front of tens of thousands of people right now, and it’s on television,” Trump said. “That’s a hell of a lot harder to do than a debate.”

The former president said he didn’t know who the “best” other Republican presidential candidate was, but said he liked “one of them” — referring to Ramaswamy.

“One of them said … on the stage – that, ‘President Trump is the greatest president in many generations,’” Trump said, referring to a past debate. “I sort of like him. … I mean, how can I dislike him? He’s so nice.”

He said he thought it was “okay” that Ramaswamy said he is running for president because he’s a younger version of Trump, but that “we want the older version, right?”

He briefly called out DeSantis by name, claiming the Florida governor only won his reelection campaign because of Trump’s endorsement.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Israel center stage

Debating for the first time since the Israel-Hamas war began Oct. 7, the candidates spent more time on foreign policy Wednesday.

All five used harsh language to describe what they would tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“I will be telling Bibi: Finish the job once and for all with these butchers,” DeSantis said. “They’re terrorists. They’re massacring innocent people.”

The other candidates also called for Israel to destroy Hamas and criticized calls for a ceasefire, with Haley also dismissing even a temporary cessation of fighting to allow for humanitarian aid.

But differences emerged on Ukraine’s war with Russia.

Scott said he has supported Ukraine’s war effort, but said an aid package for both Israel and Ukraine, as President Joe Biden has proposed, was the wrong approach.

“We need to focus specifically on providing Israel with the $14 billion that they need so that we show the world that we are 100% undeniably standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel,” he said.

Aid to Ukraine, he said, should be conditioned on a higher degree of accountability “to understand where the resources have gone.”

As he has been since the start of the race, Ramaswamy was the most explicitly pro-Russia, criticizing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and saying the regions of Ukraine that Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded last year are culturally Russian.

“To frame this as some kind of battle between good versus evil: Don’t buy it,” he said.

He called Haley “the sharpest of the war hawks on Ukraine” who should be held accountable for her position.

Haley responded that Ramaswamy, a 38-year-old with no government experience, was naive about world affairs.

“I’m telling you, Putin and (Chinese) President Xi (Jinping) are salivating at the thought that someone like that could become president,” she said.

Ramaswamy also said that U.S. troops should be sent to the border with Mexico.

“We will use our own military to seal our own Southern border,” he said. “What we need to do is stop using our military to protect somebody else’s border halfway around the world, when we’re short right here at home.”

Abortion rights

The debate came a day after an Election Day that highlighted Republicans’ weakness on abortion rights, an issue that has remained salient in the nearly 18 months since the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear won reelection in heavily Republican Kentucky. Democrats in Virginia ran on a pro-abortion-rights message to win both chambers of the General Assembly and Ohio voters approved a measure to protect abortion rights in the state constitution.

All candidates said they were opposed to abortion, but, with Scott as a notable exception, most de-emphasized the role of the federal government and the president.

Scott called himself “100% pro-life,” and said as president he would enact a 15-week national ban.

Haley said she would sign any bill to limit abortion rights, but that it was not realistic to make such promises because a federal bill would have to get 60 votes in a U.S. Senate currently controlled by Democrats.

Instead, she said, abortion opponents should work with abortion rights supporters to find consensus on issues to expand access to contraception and adoption.

DeSantis said Republicans had to better contest ballot measures at the state level.

Christie said conservatives have long called for the issue to be decided on a state level, which he said was consistent with the foundations of U.S. democracy.

“The founders were really smart,” he said. “And this is an issue that should be decided in each state. I trust the people of this country, state-by-state, to make the call for themselves.”

Ramaswamy said it would take a “different generation of leadership to actually lead us forward and unite the country on this.”

Haley clashes with DeSantis, Ramaswamy

Haley, running third in most polls behind Trump and DeSantis, trained much of her rhetoric on the only candidate on stage ahead of her.

She said she would end formal trade relations with China until fentanyl was better controlled and noted DeSantis had not taken that position.

DeSantis criticized Haley for, as South Carolina governor, trying to lure Chinese companies to the state.

“She welcomed them into South Carolina, gave them land near a military base, wrote the Chinese ambassador a love letter saying what a great friend they were,” he said. “That was like their number one way to do economic development.”

Haley said relations with China have worsened in the 10 years since she sought economic development from the country.

She added that as governor, DeSantis has much more recently tried to bring Chinese companies to his state.

She also attacked DeSantis’ record opposing fracking in Florida. DeSantis’ presidential campaign supports fracking, a controversial part of extracting natural gas, but he has opposed it in Florida. DeSantis said Wednesday he only opposed fracking in the Everglades, but analysis has shown he campaigned on a broader objection.

Ramaswamy, whose isolationist foreign policy has been a central part of his campaign, referred to neoconservatives in the Republican Party who resembled “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels,” apparently referring to both Haley and DeSantis.

DeSantis didn’t respond to the dig, but Haley later said that her heels were “for ammunition.”

Trump holds separate rally

Trump took the stage in Hialeah, 15 miles away from the debate, his campaign declaring Florida is “Trump County.”

Trump called for supporters to help him win the Florida primary “for the third straight time.” Though the event coincided with the GOP presidential debate, Trump spent most of his time criticizing Biden.

He repeated false claims that Biden and Democrats “cheated” in the 2020 general election, and said that he is often asked by supporters if he expects Biden to try to “cheat again.”

“The radical left Democrats rigged the presidential election of 2020 and we’re not going to allow them to rig the presidential election of 2024,” Trump said.

He said that Biden could not win a fair election, saying voters will not support a candidate whose presidency led to high inflation, international conflicts and “open borders.”

While Trump said he believed he could win in a rematch against Biden, he also claimed that the upcoming presidential election is the last chance to prevent his political opponents from permanently seizing power.

“This election will decide whether power in America belongs to them forever, or whether it belongs to you, the men and women who make this country great, who make this country run,” Trump told the crowd. “2024 is our final battle. Stand with me in the fight.”

Biden’s campaign spokesperson Ammar Moussa released a statement Wednesday saying that Trump continues to lie about the 2020 election “rather than admit he lost — like an adult.”

“It would be sad, if it weren’t so dangerous,” Moussa said. “… The dangerous and erratic ramblings of a loser who can’t admit defeat only underscore that Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States.”

Trump highlights Sanders endorsement 

While he briefly criticized DeSantis, Trump also highlighted another Republican governor supporting his campaign: Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Sanders, who served Trump as press secretary, endorsed her former boss Monday, and told the Florida crowd to help him return to the White House “because our country has never needed Donald Trump more than we do right now.”

Sanders said she faced countless attacks and “mean tweets” during her time as press secretary and governor — and that Trump has also faced constant criticism and scrutiny.

“I know that a lot of people may complain that President Trump was too loud, too disruptive, and sometimes even a little too direct,” Sanders said. “But to me, that’s the very best thing about this president. He tells it like it is.”

Sanders was not the only endorser Trump highlighted at the Florida event — he thanked comedian Roseanne Barr and rapper Lil Pump for their support while on stage. He also thanked Florida Republicans who endorsed him. The crowd booed when he thanked U.S. Rep. Carlos Gimenez, a Republican who voted against U.S. GOP Rep. Jim Jordan for House speaker.

“Oh, you don’t like him?” Trump asked. “What’s going on? Carlos! Come on now. Well, you got to get that straightened out.”

The mayor of Hialeah, Esteban Bovo, joined Trump on stage. He thanked Trump for holding an event in the city, and said that he plans to ask the Hialeah city council to authorize naming a street after Trump — holding up a road sign of “President Donald J. Trump Avenue” on stage.

“That’s an honor, great honor,” Trump said. “I did not know that. Thank you very much.”

Thousands attended the event in South Florida, which political analysts say was a strategic location to appeal to Florida Latino voters, including many Cuban Americans. In the most recent census, 95% of Hialeah residents identified as Hispanic or Latino.

Trump told the crowd Biden and Democrats were turning the U.S. into “communist Cuba.”

“We have some great Cubans here,” Trump said. “And nobody ever did more for Americans who love Cuba than a gentleman named Donald J. Trump when he was president.”

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

CAPTION: The U.S. House Transportation-HUD and Interior spending bills would block funding for LGBTQ pride flags at certain federal departments and agencies. Shown are the rainbow pride flag and an American flag (Getty Images).

U.S. House Republicans are continuing to use government spending bills to engage in culture war battles, with legislation debated during the past week that would ban pride flags on some federal buildings, strip funding from a new museum for Latino history and target certain LGBTQ and racial equity policies and programs.

The hot-button provisions in the bills to fund the Interior, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development departments are unlikely to become law after negotiations with the Democratic Senate. But they signal that the House Republican majority will maintain a strong focus on contentious social issues, as have their counterparts in GOP-majority statehouses.

Spending bills, particularly in the House, often include policy provisions favored by the majority party. But the level of detail in measures that historically have seen fewer such fights reflects a more aggressive position by House Republicans, observers said.

Democrats object to the overall spending levels in the Republican-written House spending bills, which are lower than detailed in the debt limit agreement House Republicans reached with President Joe Biden. But Democrats are also highly critical of the inclusion of cultural issues that have little to do with spending.

Who is Mike Johnson? New U.S. House speaker belongs to GOP’s religious conservative wing

The bill to fund the Transportation Department and HUD and the bill to fund Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency “shove MAGA culture wars down the throats of the American people,” House Rules Committee ranking member Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, said on the floor Thursday.

The Transportation-HUD bill, votes on which were postponed to the week of Nov. 6, includes a contentious provision to block spending on three specific LGBTQ community centers in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The language was adopted in a tense committee meeting in July marked by charges of hatred and bigotry by Democrats.

In a statement, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts called the provision “one of the more brazen culture war moves this Congress.”

Spokespeople for House Appropriations Chair Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, and Transportation-HUD Subcommittee Chair Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, did not immediately return messages seeking comment Friday.

The Transportation-HUD bill and Interior bills would also block funding for LGBTQ pride flags at departments and agencies covered by the bills and include a provision that bans disciplinary action for people acting on “sincerely held religious belief” against same-sex marriage.

The bill to fund the Interior Department, Environmental Protection Agency and similar agencies, which the House passed Friday on a near-party-line 213-203 vote, includes provisions blocking funding for the Smithsonian Institute’s National Museum of the American Latino, various diversity programs and the promotion of critical race theory. Congress authorized the museum, which would recognize the history, culture and accomplishments of Latino communities, in 2020.

Three Republicans, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mike Lawler and Marc Molinaro of New York, voted against the bill. One Democrat, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, voted in favor.

New fronts in culture war

Partisan provisions in spending bills are not new, said former U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent, a Pennsylvania Republican who sat on the House Appropriations Committee from 2011 to his retirement in 2018.

But they are generally more common in the bills related to health care, labor, education and homeland security spending.

Bills to fund military construction and the departments of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Interior and Energy “tended not to get as many bad ones,” Dent told States Newsroom, referring to partisan policies.

Republican amendments to limit spending seen as wasteful were “not uncommon,” but generally didn’t stray into cultural issues, he said.

The small-scale nature of some of the provisions appears more targeted than in past years, Sonya Acosta, a senior housing policy analyst at the liberal think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said.

“It’s not a new thing for members of Congress to have anti-LGBTQ policies,” Acosta said. “But to have them be so minute seems different.”

Appropriators, generally seen in Congress as moderates who must compromise, write contentious provisions into bills to mollify more extreme members, Dent said.

“This has been going on for years, and it’s only getting worse,” he added. “Just getting these people trying to force appropriators to write bills we knew could never become law. But it’s a wink and a nod: ‘OK, we’ll pass this piece of garbage out of the House and we’ll get to where we want to go in the end but we have to go through this process.’”

Environmental justice targeted

In another example, an amendment to the Interior-Environment bill offered by Texas Republican Chip Roy would block funding for environmental justice programs.

Biden’s Justice40 Initiative has sought to spend 40% of certain environmental and climate funding in disadvantaged communities that have been harmed by pollution and climate impacts.

“This entire ideology is based on the notion that federal environmental funding should be allocated based on immutable characteristics,” Roy said on the House floor Friday, apparently referring to environmental justice efforts targeted to communities of color.

Rep. Chellie Pingree, a Maine Democrat who is the ranking member on the Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, responded that undesirable sites such as landfills, incinerators and radioactive waste storage have often been placed in low-income communities.

Environmental justice initiatives seek to reverse that historic discrimination that has resulted in communities seeing lower property values, higher health care costs and shorter lifespans, she said.

“Why would my colleagues try to defund any efforts to improve the lives of people in rural and low-income communities?” Pingree said. “I’m sorry, but it’s just another attempt to implement an extreme agenda to attack minority groups at all costs, and to return the U.S. to a time when environmental discrimination was the norm.”

The House adopted Roy’s amendment on a 212-204 vote. Republicans Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon and Fitzpatrick joined all Democrats present in voting against adoption.

The bill also included a provision to block funding “that promotes or advances” critical race theory, an academic field generally used in higher education that has nonetheless become a target of social conservatives worried that it is an example of reverse racism taught to young students.

The bill includes some funding for the Bureau of Indian Education, which supports schools on reservations. Another spending bill covering education, labor and health and human services also includes BIE funding.

Senate leverage

Spending bills are typically resolved by the leaders of each party in the House and Senate, Dent said.

Because of the nature of each chamber — and the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to pass legislation — the House version typically includes more partisan provisions that are stripped out of the final product. The Senate version is generally more bipartisan from the outset, giving that chamber the upper hand in negotiations, Dent said.

“Whatever bill crosses the finish line is not going to have these very contentious policy riders because they can’t get a bipartisan consensus in the Senate that would allow for 60 votes,” he said.

Dent, who was seen as a moderate during his time in office and has endorsed some Democrats since leaving Congress in 2018, criticized House Republicans for allowing a group of conservative hardliners to dictate the appropriations process.

“They go through this exercise all in an attempt to placate, pacify, appease, this hard-right group that didn’t support the budget agreement anyway,” he said. “All this time and effort to appease folks who are not going to end up voting for the bill anyway.”

But including such provisions in the House bill allocating housing funds still has consequences for LGBTQ people, Acosta said.

“LGBTQ folks experience homelessness at higher rates,” she said. “And part of that is because of the attitudes that are now being promoted at the federal level. And so that’s only going to exacerbate the issues that are happening on the ground.”

Seeing that could make LGBTQ people less likely to feel comfortable seeking services, Acosta added.

“Even if it’s just around messaging,” she said. “That messaging is incredibly harmful and counter-productive.”

Election administrators from the states with more contested elections said threats have increased in recent years, fueled largely by the types of unfounded conspiracy theories that Donald Trump espoused (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images).

State and local election officials face threats and intimidation, driving experienced workers out of the profession, a panel of election officials told a U.S. Senate committee Wednesday.

Conspiracy theories have fueled a more hostile environment for election workers, which has led many to quit, creating more challenges for the inexperienced new leaders, the top election officials from two battleground states testified at a U.S. Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing on threats to election administration.

Democratic and Republican election workers have been the targets of “threats and abusive conduct,” Rules Committee Chair Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, said.

Senators stressed the bipartisan nature of the issue and neither members of the committee nor the election administrator witnesses – which included state officials from Arizona, Pennsylvania and Nebraska and the Rutherford County, Tennessee, administrator of elections — mentioned former President Donald Trump or his unfounded attempts to discredit the 2020 election results that led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Congress must “continue the federal funding and to make clear this is a bipartisan, nonpartisan piece of the work that we do,” Klobuchar said.

“In recent years, election officials have faced both cybersecurity threats and physical threats,” the panel’s ranking Republican, Nebraska’s Deb Fischer, said. “They have struggled to retain experienced poll workers and to recruit and train new poll workers.”

Retention ‘one of the biggest challenges’

Threats against election workers and related issues have worsened since 2020, senators and witnesses said.

Twelve of Arizona’s 15 counties lost their chief election official in the last three years, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, told the committee.

“As a former county recorder myself, I can attest that the pre-2020 world for election administrators is gone,” he said. “We don’t feel safe in our work because of the harassment and threats that are based in lies.”

He urged action to combat the misinformation that has led to distrust of election officials, calling it a “threat to American democracy.”

“Many veteran Arizona officials from both political parties … have left the profession for the sake of their own physical, mental and emotional health and that of their families,” Fontes said. “The cost of persistent misrepresentations about the integrity of our elections is high, but the cost of inaction against those threats is higher.”

More than 50 top local officials resigned over the same period in Pennsylvania, Klobuchar said. The entire staff of the election officials in Buckingham County, Virginia, left earlier this year, she added.

Election workers saw new levels of hostility after 2020, Elizabeth Howard, a researcher at the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive voting rights nonprofit, testified.

That environment has led many experienced administrators to leave the profession, election administrators said.

Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt, a Republican and the state’s highest ranking election official, described a vicious cycle. Experienced elections officials’ resignations left less experienced workers in charge.

“They’re more likely to make errors and make errors in an environment where everything is perceived as being intentional and malicious and seeking to change the outcome of the election,” he said.

Schmidt said the difficulty in retaining election workers and recruiting new ones is “one of the biggest challenges” in running elections.

But the environment since Trump pushed unfounded theories that his reelection loss in 2020 was illegitimate made that much more difficult.

“It almost defies common sense that we have people who want to get into these jobs,” Fontes said.

Red state officials report fewer issues

Nebraska Deputy Secretary of State Wayne J. Bena, who serves in an unelected position under an elected Republican, did not mention threats or intimidation of election workers in his state, but defended their work. A manual audit revealed only 11 discrepancies in nearly 50,000 ballots, he said.

“That’s an error rate of 23,000th of 1%,” he said. “This post-election audit provided valuable data in each county to verify the accuracy of our ballot counting equipment. Let me be clear: This expanded audit was not easy, but it provides another example of how our election officials go above and beyond to ensure the utmost integrity in our elections.”

J. Alan Farley, who oversees a county election commission in Rutherford County, Tennessee, said his workers have not experienced physical threats and the issue has not affected his office’s recruitment efforts.

At a recent event for about 250 election workers to discuss the 2024 presidential cycle, some who worked the 2020 and 2022 elections were “eager to return,” he said.

“Threats to election officials were never mentioned” during the event, he said.

But, Farley said, county elections officials in Tennessee did face cybersecurity challenges and could use federal funding to address them, he said.

“Many counties in the state of Tennessee do not have adequate funding for county IT departments,” he said.

Conspiracy theories feed difficult environment

But the election administrators from the states with more contested elections said threats have increased in recent years, fueled largely by the types of unfounded conspiracy theories that Trump espoused.

Administrators should take seriously the legitimate threats to election integrity, which is a real issue, Schmidt, whom Trump personally attacked for his work overseeing Philadelphia’s 2020 election results, said.

But conspiracy theorists who claim to be concerned with election integrity often promote wildly absurd ideas, he said, adding that such claims were particularly numerous about Philadelphia in the 2020 cycle.

“I can’t begin to share the number in Philadelphia that we experienced in 2020 that if it were a movie you’d walk out — it’s just so dumb,” Schmidt said. “But a lot of people believe it.”

Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff said conspiracy theories led to 65,000 voter registration challenges in just eight counties in his state in the leadup to the 2022 midterms. The challenges were “overwhelmingly frivolous” and targeted Black voters, Ossoff said.

Fontes urged a more aggressive posture to fight misinformation.

“I think we need to be very, very much more robust in attacking the illegitimate attacks for what they are: conspiracy theories and lies designed to undermine our democracy,” Fontes said.

Jack Lew, President Joe Biden’s nominee to be the U.S. ambassador to Israel, testifies during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on Oct. 18, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

“We’re going to do everything that we can from here, but really the answer is Congress has to act,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday, Oct. 26, 2023, one day after a mass shooter killed 18 people and injured 13 others in Lewiston, Maine (Drew Angerer/ Getty Images).

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called on Congress on Thursday to strengthen gun safety laws in the wake of the mass shootings in Lewiston, Maine.

Jean-Pierre opened Thursday’s press briefing with a statement on the shootings, saying President Joe Biden stepped out of a state dinner Wednesday night to receive an initial briefing on the event. Biden and first lady Jill Biden were “praying for the victims and their families” and “for those still fighting for their lives,” Jean-Pierre said.

Such violence devastated families and communities and left survivors “both physically and mentally scarred,” she said. She ticked through a list of policies Congress could enact to reduce future violence: banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring universal background checks and requiring safe storage of guns.

Biden signed a bipartisan gun safety bill last year, which was narrower than an earlier Democratic proposal. He also established a White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, headed by Vice President Kamala Harris, last month.

But such steps were insufficient, Jean-Pierre said.

“While we have made progress since the president signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act into law, much more — much more — must be done,” she said. “The president has been clear that executive action alone is just not enough.”

The White House office would evaluate what further executive actions could be taken, Jean-Pierre said. But the bulk of the responsibility fell to Congress, she said.

“We’re going to do everything that we can from here, but really the answer is Congress has to act,” she said. “They have to take action.”

Jean-Pierre declined to answer a question about Biden potentially visiting Lewiston in the aftermath of the shootings. The first priority should be to arrest a suspect, she said.

U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La. delivers remarks with fellow Republicans on the East Front steps of the House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol on October 25, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

Before a relatively short time in elected office, new U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana was a constitutional lawyer deeply involved in religious causes.

Prior to a short stint in the Louisiana Legislature, Johnson spent two decades as a public interest lawyer mainly representing clients in so-called religious liberty litigation, he said in an interview with C-SPAN shortly after joining Congress in 2017. He worked in private practice for the Kitchens Law Firm in North Louisiana, and also did work for the conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom, according to a 2015 article in the New Orleans Time-Picayune.

He also “litigated high profile constitutional law cases” defending Second Amendment rights, free speech and free market principles, according to his campaign website.

House Republicans’ choice of Johnson addressed two faults some members of the conference found with a previous speaker-designee who dropped out on Tuesday, Minnesota’s Tom Emmer.

Emmer voted to certify the 2020 presidential election, putting him at odds with former President Donald Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 presidential nomination, and for a bill codifying same-sex and interracial marriage. Johnson was on the other side of both votes.

The Louisianan was a strong backer of Trump’s claims that his reelection loss in 2020 was illegitimate. He led 126 House Republicans in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case seeking to overturn Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in that election.

And Johnson voted to object to the 2020 election results from Arizona and Pennsylvania, even after a pro-Trump mob attacked the U.S. Capitol.

In Congress, Johnson has maintained a reputation as an opponent of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. He has an ‘A+’ rating from the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List in the last two sessions of Congress and a 100% rating for the current year from FRC Action, the legislative arm of the influential evangelical group Family Research Council.

The League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group, has given him a 2% lifetime rating, lower than all but 24 current House members, all Republicans.

He’s received $338,000 in campaign contributions to his personal campaign and leadership committee since 2015 from oil and gas interests influential in Louisiana — the most of any industry, according to Open Secrets, a nonprofit campaign finance tracking organization.

He’s also maintained ties to religious conservatives after coming to Washington.

He taught online college courses at Liberty University, a conservative Christian school in Virginia, earning him just less than $30,000 in 2022, according to his most recent personal financial disclosure, required for members of Congress.

His wife earned income in 2022 from Onward Christian Education Services Inc. and Louisiana Right to Life Educational Committee Inc., according to his financial disclosure.

Johnson’s voting record is strongly conservative, and he has little record of working across the aisle. He voted against high-profile bipartisan laws, including the $1.2 trillion infrastructure law, a gun safety law and a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

Fundraising gap

Johnson’s campaign fundraising operation has increased by small margins in each cycle since his first House run in 2016. He raised $1.1 million for his first run and over $1.3 million for his most recent reelection, according to Open Secrets. The numbers include money raised for Johnson’s leadership political action committees.

Part of a speaker’s role in modern times has been as a fundraising force for rank-and-file members. Johnson will have to expand his fundraising to replace the prolific Kevin McCarthy, whom eight GOP members ousted three weeks ago.

McCarthy, of California, has raised more than $15 million so far this cycle for his own campaign and his leadership committee. Emmer, the No. 3 House Republican, has raised $3.7 million. Johnson has raised just less than $600,000.

The largest single contributor to Johnson and his leadership PACs over his five campaigns has been Willis-Knighton Health System, a hospital system based in Shreveport whose employees have given $91,000 to Johnson’s campaigns.

House Freedom Fund, the political action committee associated with the far-right House Freedom Caucus, is his second-largest contributor. It has sent $58,000 to Johnson since the 2016 cycle.

A spokesperson for his House office did not respond to an inquiry about whom Johnson represented as an attorney.

Johnson’s legal work does not appear to have been overly profitable. He claimed no assets in his most recent financial disclosure, which is unusual.

House members are required to report any assets worth more than $1,000. Those assets can include real estate, retirement accounts, investment portfolios or simple savings accounts. Many members report millions of dollars in such assets.

Johnson listed between $280,000 and $600,000 in liabilities, most of which was from a home mortgage of between $250,000 and $500,000. The rest of his debt was split between a personal loan taken out in July 2016 and a home equity line of credit taken out in February 2019.

–Ariana Figueroa and Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

Jack Lew, President Joe Biden’s nominee to be the U.S. ambassador to Israel, testifies during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on Oct. 18, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee advanced Wednesday the nomination of Jacob J. Lew, President Joe Biden’s choice to be U.S. ambassador to Israel.

The panel voted 12-9 to approve the nomination of Lew, a former Treasury secretary and White House chief of staff under President Barack Obama. Kentucky Republican Rand Paul was the only GOP member to vote with the panel’s 11 Democrats to approve Lew, according to Suzanne Wrasse, a spokesperson for ranking Republican Jim Risch of Idaho.

Members of both parties have expressed urgency about confirming an ambassador to Israel amid the country’s ongoing war with Hamas.

But Republicans have been wary about Lew’s time in the Obama administration, particularly his role in carrying out a deal with Iran that lifted some economic sanctions on the U.S. adversary. Iran is also a chief antagonist of Israel and sponsors militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

“Under Obama, Mr. Lew was working directly under the table to get Iran back into the financial system,” Risch said, according to Wrasse. “As a result I will vote today to support Israel and vote no on Mr. Lew. It should be someone the Israelis will have trust in, and this committee will have trust in. I don’t have trust in him at this time.”

A spokesman for committee Chairman Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, did not immediately respond to messages Wednesday morning.

No Senate Democrats have voiced any opposition to Lew, who needs only a simple majority in a floor vote in the Democratic-controlled chamber. He picked up a key endorsement Tuesday when centrist West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin III said he would support Lew.

Manchin, who often votes against a majority of his party, said he and Lew have remained friends for years “despite our differing views on the Iran Deal in 2015.”

“After speaking with him multiple times and given his nomination for the position of Ambassador to Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, Jack has agreed to support pushing to enforce and strengthen sanctions and other points of leverage including snapback against Iran for its support of terrorism and other destabilizing activities,” Manchin said in a Tuesday statement.

“Snapback” means reimposing some sanctions that were lifted in the 2015 agreement.

At his confirmation hearing last week, Lew defended his record on Iran, saying as Treasury secretary he only upheld the U.S. commitment to an international agreement. Iranian officials were upset, he said, that his department restricted access to financial markets they’d expected to be part of the deal.

Cardin said at the hearing that confirming an ambassador was of paramount importance after the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas killed more than 1,300 in Israel, including at least 31 Americans. Hamas is still holding hostages that could include U.S. citizens.

U.S. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., right, and Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa., arrive to a House GOP candidates forum where congressmen who are running for speaker of the House presented their platforms in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill on Oct. 24, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans Tuesday voted to tap Minnesota’s Tom Emmer as speaker following five rounds of ballots — but Emmer quit the race just four hours later, after he was attacked by the GOP’s most powerful figure, former President Donald Trump.

After beating six candidates, Emmer, the No. 3 Republican, faced an uphill battle to coalesce more than 20 hard-right Republican holdouts loyal to Trump, who took to social media shortly after the vote to warn that electing Emmer would be a “tragic mistake.”

“He never respected the Power of a Trump Endorsement, or the breadth and scope of MAGA,” Trump, also a 2024 candidate for president, wrote about Emmer on his site, Truth Social. “He is totally out-of-touch with Republican Voters.”

Emmer, 62, who represents a safe GOP district that includes parts of the western and northern Twin Cities suburbs, the city of St. Cloud and rural areas in between, had continued to meet with holdouts on Tuesday afternoon following the closed-door conference vote.

Emmer quickly left the meeting later Tuesday, dodging reporters chasing after him. He declined to comment before entering a black car. Multiple media reports said he dropped out a short time later.

With Emmer out, Republicans will have to begin their nomination process anew and it was unclear how that would proceed.

Emmer would have had to get nearly all of the 221 Republican votes on the House floor, as all Democrats are expected to vote for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. In the final secret ballot, Emmer earned 117 GOP votes, a long way from the 217 needed for the speaker’s gavel if all Republicans are present and voting.

In a roll call conference vote, again behind closed doors, on whether a member would support him on the floor, Emmer’s support grew to 186, according to several lawmakers in the meeting.

Several Republicans leaving Tuesday’s meeting, such as Reps. Steve Womack of Arkansas and Dusty Johnson of South Dakota, acknowledged that Emmer did not have the votes needed to become speaker, but still remained hopeful that Emmer could narrow that gap.

Womack said that because the conference had a roll call ballot, Emmer can see which Republicans were holdouts.

“I expect that Tom would want to meet with the individuals that are not calling his name and see if there is something he can say or do that could bring them around and help shore up their requisite 217,” Womack said. “If he can’t do that, then he’s got to make a decision as to whether he goes to the floor.”

Womack added that there are some members that will always be against Emmer, but he did not name them.

“What I just saw in that room illustrates to me that there are some people that are pretty well dug in and are not going to support the current designee,” he said.

For example, Georgia’s Rick Allen, had already stated he will never vote for Emmer because the Minnesota Republican voted to codify same-sex marriage, according to CNN.

Johnson said that Emmer was working on flipping those holdouts.

“People with concerns are coming forward, and he’s taking them head on,” Johnson said.

When asked how many members voted against Emmer in the roll call vote, Mike Waltz of Florida said “too many.”

Third GOP nominee

Emmer was the third Republican nominee for speaker.

The first, Louisiana’s Steve Scalise never brought his nomination for a floor vote and the second, Ohio’s Jim Jordan, was tossed aside by the party after his third and final unsuccessful floor vote for the speaker’s gavel.

The House has been without a speaker for 21 days.

Emmer, who serves in GOP leadership as the Republican whip, had the endorsement of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, but would have had to court members and allies of the far-right House Freedom Caucus who are aligned closely with Trump.

On Monday, Emmer posted a video in which he said he has always “gotten along” with Trump, who is also the current GOP front-runner in the 2024 presidential election.

In a Monday campaign stop in New Hampshire, Trump was asked if he’d endorse Emmer. The former president said he’d “always gotten along with” Emmer, but said he was trying to allow House Republicans to choose their own leader.

Emmer posted a video clip of the appearance to X, saying as speaker, he would continue the pair’s “strong working relationship.”

However, by Tuesday, Trump had posted about his opposition to Emmer on his social media site.

Emmer was also one of the few candidates running for the speakership who voted to certify the 2020 election results.

The speaker campaign

On Monday night, as they tried again to elect a speaker, House Republicans heard pitches from eight of their colleagues who had filed by a Sunday deadline. Pennsylvania’s Dan Meuser was also a candidate but dropped out in the middle of the closed-door candidate forum.

Those GOP lawmakers who ran for the speaker’s gavel included Reps. Gary Palmer of Alabama, Byron Donalds of Florida, Austin Scott of Georgia, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Jack Bergman of Michigan, Kevin Hern of Oklahoma and Pete Sessions of Texas.

Early Tuesday, Scalise, the House majority leader, said the goal is for Republicans to unify behind a nominee and get back to legislative work that has been stalled since McCarthy was ousted earlier this month. 

“There’s a lot of work to do,” Scalise said. “All of these things are bills that are ready to go that we want to move.”

Whoever becomes speaker will be tasked with a quickly approaching Nov. 17 deadline for government funding and a nearly $106 billion supplemental aid request from the White House for Ukraine, Israel and global aid and U.S. border security. Emmer will also have to lead in moving must-pass legislation such as the annual defense bill and five-year reauthorization of the farm bill.

On top of legislative duties the new speaker will have to balance striking deals with a White House and Senate controlled by Democrats while also fundraising and protecting vulnerable Republicans and expanding the House’s slim GOP majority in the 2024 elections.

McCarthy said he wants to see the party move beyond its deep fractures and that there must be “consequences” for the eight Republicans who voted with Democrats to oust him.

“It’s frustrating because it’s just a few, these eight, working with all the Democrats to ruin the reputation of the Republicans, but we’ll earn it back,” the California Republican said.

Five ballots for Emmer

Republicans went through five secret ballots on Tuesday to get to a nominee. Some candidates withdrew their names prior to voting to speed the process along, such as Palmer and Meuser.

Sessions was dropped in the first round of ballots; Bergman in the second round; Scott in the third round; Hern in the fourth round; and Johnson in the fifth round. Donalds withdrew in the fourth round.

Because Republicans have struggled to rally behind one candidate, Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska asked all speaker candidates and GOP lawmakers to sign a unity pledge.

But there were clear signs of dissent.

For the first four rounds of secret ballots, six lawmakers voted either present or for others besides the announced candidates, stirring concern that a candidate may not be able to gain the support of the majority of the conference on the floor.

Bill Huizenga of Michigan said as the final ballot was ongoing, he had a message for those Republicans who voted present: “We got to figure this out. Stop voting present, stop voting for other people. We have two candidates.”

One of those who voted present, Troy Nehls of Texas, said that Emmer had no chance of becoming speaker and that as Republicans, “we are, again, back to where we started.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky said Emmer asked the holdouts to remain in the room after an up-or-down roll call vote to discuss differences.

“So when I left, several people who voted different than Emmer were at the microphone,” he said.

Rep. Ann Wagner of Missouri said she hoped Emmer’s approach would rebuild trust among the conference.

“This is really good because it also does away with this feeling that there are any kind of backroom deals going on or that people are, you know, getting their wish lists,” Wagner said, referring to one-on-one meetings that other speaker candidates have held.

In January, McCarthy made a secret handshake deal with far right conservatives before he won on a 15th ballot.

Mario Díaz-Balart of Florida said that while Donalds was his first choice, he wanted to unify around Emmer whom he described as “honorable.”

As whip “he has the relationships. If he can’t pull it together then we’re running into some very, very difficult times,” he said.

House Democrats continued to criticize the GOP Tuesday.

“Chaos and dysfunction continue to be the order of the day in the House Republican majority. Today is day 21 without a speaker, and the other side is back to square one,” Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar said at a press conference.

Emmer finances, fundraising

Known in Congress as a promoter of cryptocurrency, Emmer’s own finances are remarkably traditional, according to personal financial reports required of members of Congress.

In his most recent annual report, filed in May, Emmer listed only one asset, an investment account worth between $15,000 and $50,000, and one liability, a mortgage of between $100,000 and $250,000.

He listed no stock holdings, transactions, gifts or other finances — a rarity for congressional financial disclosures that are often more complicated.

A prolific fundraiser as the former head of the House Republican campaign operation, Emmer has raised millions from the cryptocurrency sector and promoted the technology in the House, where he sits on the Financial Services Committee.

He raised $2 million for the National Republican Congressional Committee in the 2022 cycle from the political action committee of Ryan Salame, the former co-CEO of FTX, a crypto firm that went bankrupt after serious allegations of fraud.

Immediately following that scandal, Emmer maintained that the FTX example should not undermine the promise of cryptocurrency itself.

For the current campaign cycle, Emmer has raised a combined $3.7 million for his own campaign and for his leadership PAC. He’s raised $230,000 from contributors in the securities and investment industry — more than any industry other than “retired,” according to the nonprofit campaign spending tracking group Open Secrets.

U.S. House Republicans were meeting Monday night to hear from their latest candidates for speaker. Shown is the U.S. Capitol at night. (Bill Dickinson/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON –– The eight Republican candidates to be speaker of the U.S. House were set to make their cases to their colleagues Monday evening, as the House Republican Conference restarted its process to choose a candidate.

Nine had filed on Sunday to run for speaker but on Monday night Pennsylvania Rep. Dan Meuser dropped out, after announcing just the day before he would make a bid for the post. Meuser cited his promise to run former President Donald Trump’s campaign in Pennsylvania as one of the reasons he exited the race.

The chamber has been in turmoil since eight Republicans voted with all House Democrats to remove Speaker Kevin McCarthy from the post last month. The conference has been unable to unite behind a single candidate.

After Monday night’s speeches, the conference was expected to hold a vote or likely multiple votes behind closed doors Tuesday to try to settle on a nominee, then bring that nominee to the floor.

With the exception of Minnesota’s Tom Emmer, the House majority whip, the group is not particularly well known outside of their districts.

Six of the eight voted to object to certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election, in line with Trump’s position.

With Republicans holding only a 221-212 majority, any would-be speaker will need near-unanimous support from Republicans — a tall order for a deeply divided conference largely still loyal to the former president, but with some members in vulnerable seats.

“It’s a nearly impossible task,” Peter Loge, a professor at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, told States Newsroom. “Because you have to be as conservative and angry and election-denying as Matt Gaetz, but as reasonable and a believer in compromise and democratic institutions as the New York moderates. And you can’t be both at the same time.”

In hopes that Republicans will rally around whoever the party nominates this time, Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska introduced a “unity pledge” for members to sign. As of Monday afternoon, eight of the nine original candidates — all but Gary Palmer of Alabama — have signed the pledge, according to Flood’s office.

“Everyone running for Speaker should sign this,” Michigan Republican Jack Bergman, one of the contenders, wrote on X.

Loge said the field can be divided into long-term members with institutionalist tendencies — Emmer and Texas’ Pete Sessions, for example — and newer members such as Florida’s Byron Donalds, who are more in line with the conference’s anti-establishment wing.

The next speaker will immediately face a challenge in passing spending bills or a short-term funding measure to keep the government open past a Nov. 17 deadline, as well as an aid package to Israel and Ukraine amid ongoing wars and a farm bill reauthorization.

States Newsroom put together the guide below to help readers get to know the candidates:

Jack Bergman of Michigan

First elected in 2016, Bergman is a retired U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant general. He sits on the Armed Services, Veterans’ Affairs and Budget committees.

He’s said his priorities as speaker would include funding the government, especially the military, homeland security and aid to foreign allies.

In announcing his candidacy, Bergman suggested he would stay in the position only through the end of the current Congress,

“We need a leader who shuns permanent power and recognizes the current crisis of leadership,” he said.

How he’s voted:

• Certifying the 2020 election: No
• Sept. 30 continuing resolution to keep government open: Yes
• Sept. 28 Ukraine aid bill: Yes

Who’s supporting him: Other members of Michigan’s House GOP delegation. They are John James, John Moolenaar, Tim Walberg and Lisa McClain.

Byron Donalds of Florida

A member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, Donalds is a favorite of the Trump wing of the party. He voted against certifying the 2020 election and has said as recently as July that President Joe Biden is not legitimate.

First elected in 2020, Donalds, 44, is the youngest to join the field and has been in the House for the shortest time.

He has said his priorities would be to improve border security and “responsibly” pass funding bills.

He sits on the Financial Services Committee. Before coming to Congress, he worked in the finance industry.

The only non-white Republican candidate for speaker, Donalds would be the first Black speaker.

How he’s voted:

• Certifying the 2020 election: No
• Sept. 30 continuing resolution to keep government open: Did not vote
• Sept. 28 Ukraine aid bill: No

Who’s supporting him: fellow Florida Republicans Carlos Gimenez, Mario Diaz-Balart and Mike Waltz.

Tom Emmer of Minnesota

Currently the No. 3 House Republican, Emmer is considered by some the frontrunner for the top spot and has McCarthy’s endorsement.

In an appearance on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday, McCarthy praised Emmer’s experience as part of his leadership team.

“He sets himself, head and shoulders, above all those others who want to run,” McCarthy said.

Emmer also developed relationships across the conference when he chaired the House Republican campaign operation in the 2020 and 2022 cycles.

Emmer is one of only two candidates for speaker who voted consistently to certify the 2020 election results. That could make his path harder with the most fervent Trump supporters in the House GOP.

Emmer posted a video of Trump on Monday saying that he had “always gotten along” with Emmer and saying he would stay out of the speaker race. Emmer wrote that as speaker he would continue their “strong working relationship.”

He won his House seat in 2014 following an unsuccessful run for Minnesota governor.

In his letter to colleagues announcing his candidacy, Emmer highlighted national debt and spending, national security and border security as major issues.

How he’s voted:

• Certifying the 2020 election: Yes
• Sept. 30 continuing resolution to keep government open: Yes
• Sept. 28 Ukraine aid bill: Yes

Who’s supporting him: McCarthy.

Kevin Hern of Oklahoma

The chair of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, Hern could seek support from budget hawks.

The Institute for Legislative Analysis, a limited-government group, gave Hern the highest marks of any candidate for fiscal and tax issues.

Hern has not been shy about his leadership aspirations. He publicly weighed a run for speaker shortly after McCarthy stepped down, but opted not to join that race. He has said he at one time dreamed of being an astronaut.

In a letter to colleagues, Hern said Congress has not run well for decades, citing the number of unauthorized programs and a lack of regular order for spending bills. He also listed illegal immigration and drug overdose deaths as problems that Congress should address.

Hern won a special election for his House seat in 2018. Hern owns several McDonald’s franchises in Oklahoma.

How he’s voted:

• Certifying the 2020 election: No
• Sept. 30 continuing resolution to keep government open: No
• Sept. 28 Ukraine aid bill: No

Mike Johnson of Louisiana

As the vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, Johnson is something of an establishment candidate. He’s also a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, which Rep. Jim Jordan, the conference’s previous nominee, chairs.

But Johnson also has conservative bonafides, having previously chaired the House Republican Study Committee.

In his letter to colleagues asking for support, Johnson highlighted the national debt, border security, crime and inflation as major issues.

An attorney, Johnson was on Trump’s defense team for the former president’s Senate impeachment trials in 2019 and 2020.

How he’s voted:

• Certifying the 2020 election: No
• Sept. 30 continuing resolution to keep government open: No
• Sept. 28 Ukraine aid bill: No

Gary Palmer of Alabama

Palmer called for GOP unity in his speaker candidacy announcement.

“There is a distinct difference between our vision for a prosperous and strong America and the vision of the Democrats that has done so much harm,” Palmer said in his statement on X.

Palmer said he “decided to step forward” as a candidate “to do what I can to put our differences behind us and unite Republicans behind a clear path forward, so we can do our job for the benefit of the American people.”

His statement also cited the concerns American families have about the cost of living, child safety, crime in urban areas, fentanyl, federal bankruptcy and national security.

Palmer was first elected to the House in 2014.

Palmer serves as the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee. He also sits on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well as the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

He led the Alabama Policy Institute for 24 years before joining Congress. The Alabama Policy Institute is a conservative think tank with core values surrounding free markets, limited government and “strong families,” according to the organization’s website.

How he’s voted:

• Certifying the 2020 election: No
• Sept. 30 continuing resolution to keep government open: No
• Sept. 28 Ukraine aid bill: No

Austin Scott of Georgia

Scott received 81 votes when he ran for speaker earlier this month against Jordan, an Ohio Republican.

“If we are going to be the majority we need to act like the majority, and that means we have to do the right things the right way,” Scott said in his announcement Friday that he will run again for speaker of the House following Jordan’s withdrawal.

He is one of only two members to vote consistently to certify the 2020 presidential election.

Scott has been a House member since 2011.

Scott sits on the House Armed Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee. He chairs the House Agriculture Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management and Credit.

How he’s voted:

• Certifying the 2020 election: Yes
• Sept. 30 continuing resolution to keep government open: Yes
• Sept. 28 Ukraine aid bill: Yes

Pete Sessions of Texas

Sessions has been in Congress the longest of any of the candidates.

Sessions was initially elected to represent the eastern Dallas district in 1999 and continued to serve until he lost to Rep. Colin Allred in 2018. Sessions was then reelected in 2020, this time to represent the district surrounding Waco.

He chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee from 2009 to 2012. Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. He also chaired the House Rules Committee from 2013 to 2019.

Sessions voted against the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act last year, as well as the codification of same-sex marriage.

In 2019, Sessions was caught in a scandal when he was referred to in an indictment of two men charged with violating campaign finance rules.

How he’s voted:

• Certifying the 2020 election: No
• Sept. 30 continuing resolution to keep government open: Yes
• Sept. 28 Ukraine aid bill: Yes

President Joe Biden, joined by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, is briefed on the terrorist assault on Israel, Saturday Oct. 7, 2023, in the Oval Office of the White House (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith).

The Biden administration asked Congress on Friday to approve nearly $106 billion in new funding for military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, Israel and other countries and to improve security on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The funding request includes $92.2 billion for national security, including $61.4 billion for Ukraine and $14.3 billion for Israel. The administration is also requesting $13.6 billion for border security, including money to hire more U.S. Border Patrol agents and inspection machines meant to detect fentanyl.

The defense and border totals include $10 billion for humanitarian aid, split between $9.15 billion for needs in Israel, the Gaza Strip, Ukraine and other global areas, and $850 million for migration and refugee assistance on the southern border.

Military aid

In a Friday morning press call, White House Budget Director Shalanda Young said the military funding would support the U.S. defense industry and create jobs at home.

“The funding will expand production lines, strengthen the American economy, keep us safe and create new American jobs,” she said.

In a Thursday night address from the Oval Office, President Joe Biden made the case for a robust funding package focused on military aid overseas, saying the United States has an obligation to support Ukraine against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression and Israel against the terrorist strikes from the militant group Hamas.

Friday morning, White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan repeated that the U.S. had an interest in deterring Putin.

“As the president spoke about last night, we have to continue to stand up to tyranny and aggression and defend Ukraine against this brutal Russian invasion,” Sullivan told reporters on a press call. “We know from history that if we walk away and let someone like Vladimir Putin erase Ukraine’s independence, he will not stop there and would-be aggressors around the world would be emboldened.”

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and the two former Soviet countries have been at war since.

The funding request would allocate $30 billion for the Defense Department to provide equipment for Ukraine and restock its own supplies, $14.4 billion for “continued military, intelligence and other defense support” and $16.3 billion for economic assistance, according to a summary provided by the White House Friday.

The request would also fund $10.6 billion to provide Israel air and missile defense support and to restock Defense Department supplies and $3.7 billion for State Department foreign military financing and embassy support.

Israel has been at war with Hamas, a militant Palestinian group based in Gaza, since surprise attacks Oct. 7 that killed 1,300, including at least 32 U.S. citizens. Hamas continues to hold about 200 hostages, including Americans.

Biden and congressional leaders have pledged strong support for Israel, a key U.S. ally.

The package would include more than $9 billion for humanitarian needs in Ukraine, Gaza and other areas.

As Israel has retaliated against Hamas, it has cut off supplies to Gaza and conducted air strikes that have harmed the territory’s civilian population.

The U.S. assistance would help “civilians impacted by the war in Gaza, who have nothing to do with Hamas and are suffering greatly as well,” Sullivan said.

Border security

The border funding would enable U.S. Border Patrol to hire 1,300 new agents, according to materials provided by the White House. The administration also asked for funding for 100 “cutting-edge” inspection machines meant to detect fentanyl, Young said. Reducing the use of fentanyl, a deadly narcotic, has become a priority for members of both parties.

The White House request includes $4.4 billion for Department of Homeland Security holding facilities and reimbursement of Defense Department support.

It would include $1.4 billion for state and local support for migrants released from DHS custody.

The White House request addresses calls by congressional Republicans to boost border funding. U.S. Senate Republicans said this week that any foreign aid should include additional funding for the U.S.-Mexico border.

But Young said Congress had declined to take up a previous request for border security.

“We will not be lectured by those who refuse to act,” she said. “Congress needs to take action to provide sufficient resources for the border.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement she supported the goals of the funding package.

“Time is of the essence,” the Connecticut Democrat said. “American children and families, those affected by natural disasters, and our allies abroad do not have the luxury of waiting for our support. I look forward to continuing to review President Biden’s request, including that for much-needed resources to protect our border, and working with Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate to quickly draft and pass an emergency supplemental funding package.”

Palestinian emergency services and local citizens search for victims in buildings destroyed during Israeli raids in the southern Gaza Strip on Oct. 17, 2023 in Khan Yunis, Gaza (Ahmad Hasaballah/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden assured Israel that the U.S. will replenish defense stockpiles and also announced new humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza during his historic visit Wednesday to the war-torn region where thousands have died in just a dozen days, including 31 Americans.

Biden plans to ask Congress later this week for an “unprecedented support package” for Israel as it fights its latest war against Hamas militants, he said.

The death toll continues to mount on both sides, and Biden’s visit occurred just one day after an explosion killed hundreds at a hospital sheltering patients and evacuees in Gaza City, which Israel and the U.S. attribute to misfired rockets from another Palestinian militant group. Palestinian officials maintain Israel caused the explosion.

Both Democratic and Republican senators are poised to support an aid package for Israel’s counteroffensive that also includes Ukraine assistance, even as the U.S. House remains at a standstill during an ongoing messy fight to fill the speakership.

Senate Republicans said Tuesday they also want to see funds dedicated to securing the U.S. Southern border included in the package.

“For decades, we’ve ensured Israel’s qualitative military edge,” Biden said from Tel Aviv.

“We’re going to keep Iron Dome fully supplied, so we can continue standing sentinel over Israeli skies saving Israeli lives,” Biden said, referring to Israel’s air defense system established in 2011 to intercept incoming rockets.

Meeting with war cabinet

Biden met Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the nation’s president, Issac Herzog, as well as Israel’s newly established war cabinet. He also attended a community engagement event with first responders and victims’ families, according to reporters traveling with the president.

In remarks delivered from The David Kempinksi, a hotel in Tel Aviv, Biden again condemned the Hamas attacks as evil. The initial surprise ground and air incursion left more than 1,000 dead, including hundreds at a music festival.

“There’s no rationalizing it, no excusing it, period. The brutality we saw would have cut deep anywhere in the world, but it cuts deeper here in Israel. October 7, which was a sacred Jewish holiday, became the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust,” Biden said.

The Israeli government estimates that Hamas is holding 199 hostages. The U.S. says 13 Americans are unaccounted for.

Palestinian officials estimated Tuesday that nearly 3,000 have been killed and 10,000 injured since Israel’s counterstrikes on the Gaza Strip began, according to the territory’s Ministry of Health website.

A previously scheduled Wednesday summit between Biden and Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah II was called off after hundreds died in the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion in Gaza City Tuesday night.

“Based on the information we see today it appears the result of an errant rocket fired by a terrorist group in Gaza. The United States unequivocally stands for the protection of civilian life during conflict,” Biden said.

Biden plans to speak by phone with Abbas and Sisi during the flight back to the United States on Wednesday night, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters.

Biden announced $100 million in new U.S. humanitarian assistance for Gaza and the West Bank, specifically targeting the 1 million displaced in the Gaza Strip since the conflict began as well as other emergency needs.

“What sets us apart from the terrorists is we believe in the fundamental dignity of every human life, Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Jew, Muslim, Christian, everyone,” Biden said. “You can’t give up what makes you who you are. If you give that up then the terrorists win.”

Israel agreed Wednesday to allow limited relief — only food, water and medicine — to cross into Gaza, but only through Egypt.

Ambassador nominee vetted at U.S. Senate hearing

The administration and many members of Congress have sought a bipartisan U.S. position in support of Israel, and that consensus has largely stood since the Oct. 7 attacks.

But cracks in it showed Wednesday at a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the nomination of Jacob J. Lew to be U.S. ambassador to Israel.

Most Republicans on the panel said they had major reservations about Lew’s work as Treasury secretary under former President Barack Obama to enforce that administration’s Iran nuclear deal. Iran is a major sponsor of Hamas. Republicans said the deal allowed Iran access to more global financial resources.

“The United States needs a confirmed U.S. ambassador in Jerusalem,” committee Chairman Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, told Lew. “We need someone there to reinforce the message that the United States stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the State of Israel as a response to the unprecedented terrorist attack … I am committed to getting you in place in Israel as soon as possible.”

Ranking Republican Jim Risch, of Idaho, agreed that it was urgent to confirm an  ambassador for Israel, but said he had “reservations” about Biden’s selection of Lew for the post.

Risch said relations with Iran, one of Israel’s chief regional antagonists, were the most important issue facing Israel.

He said he was disappointed with Lew’s record on Iran, especially the Treasury Department issuing a license to an Omani bank in 2016 to allow Iranian assets of about $5.7 billion to flow through the U.S. financial system. The department didn’t disclose the license to the committee, Risch said.

“To me this whole thing is about Iran,” he said. “And holding hands with Iran under the table doesn’t work for me.”

Lew, who was wearing a suit with a blue and white tie — the national colors of Israel — responded that releasing those assets was an explicit condition of the nuclear deal and that specific licenses are not usually disclosed. Under Lew, the Treasury Department enforced the letter of the agreement but did not further open financial markets to Iran’s government, whose leaders were frustrated, he said.

“They complained that my actions were what kept them from getting full access to the world financial system,” he said. “We did the letter of the agreement, gave them what was agreed to in (the agreement) and nothing more.”

The committee has scheduled a vote next week to advance Lew’s nomination to the Senate floor, Cardin said. Utah Republican Mitt Romney noted in the hearing that Lew needed only Democratic votes to win confirmation and was “likely to be confirmed on that basis.”

Still seeking a two-state solution

The latest conflict is the fifth Israel-Hamas war in the 75-year history of regional tension. The others were in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021.

Hamas, designated a terrorist group by the U.S. in the late 1990s, seized control of the Palestinian territory of Gaza in 2007.

The armed group’s current leader Mohammed Deif said the surprise Oct. 7 attack was in response to Israel’s 16-year blockade of the Gaza Strip, increased attacks in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank and expansion of Israeli-built settlements into territory that Palestinians claim for a future state.

Biden said Wednesday that his administration will keep advocating for a peaceful two-state solution.

“These attacks only strengthened my commitment and determination and my will to get that done,” Biden said.

On Capitol Hill, Lew also said he supported a two-state solution after Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen urged him to address “Palestinian issues, legitimate Palestinian questions … giving them equal measures of justice and dignity.”

“I have long believed that the path towards a long-term, stable Middle East and a democratic and Jewish Israel is a two-state solution,” Lew said. “One has to deal with this issue if one is going to be on that path.”

Lew added, though, that negotiations for a long-term peace couldn’t happen while the conflict remains active.

“We’re at a moment now where, in the midst of a war, with a country that is torn apart by grief, it’s probably not the right time to start that conversation again,” he said. “But after this war is over, it has to be part of the conversation.”

Biden’s visit to Israel was his second this year to a war zone. He visited Ukraine’s capital Kyiv in February.

Palestinian emergency services and local citizens search for victims in buildings destroyed during Israeli raids in the southern Gaza Strip on Oct. 17, 2023 in Khan Yunis, Gaza (Ahmad Hasaballah/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate leaders called Tuesday for a bipartisan aid package for Israel’s counteroffensive against Hamas that also includes assistance for Ukraine and Taiwan, with possible border funding sought by Republicans, as President Joe Biden prepared to leave Tuesday evening for a trip to Israel.

Meanwhile, an explosion killed hundreds Tuesday at al-Ahli Arab Hospital, also known as Baptist Hospital, in Gaza City, according to Palestinian officials who blamed the blast on Israeli forces.

Israel denied responsibility, saying enemy rockets “passed through the vicinity of the hospital when it was hit,” the office of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted on X.

In Washington, the Biden administration is preparing a supplemental budget request, which senators expect to see by the end of the week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters Tuesday.

The package will include funding for Israel to address military, intelligence and humanitarian needs as the U.S. ally retaliates against Hamas for the militant group’s attack on Oct. 7, Schumer, a New York Democrat, said.

The package will also include aid for Ukraine and Taiwan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

But the Kentucky Republican added Republicans would also seek to add funding for security measures at the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We’d like to get the supplemental package moved as quickly as possible because the needs are great in both Israel and Ukraine,” Schumer said.

Schumer, who led a bipartisan delegation of senators to Israel over the weekend, said the package would have “the military help Israel needs, the diplomatic and intelligence help Israel needs, as well as humanitarian aid to minimize the loss of innocent human life of Palestinians and of Israelis.”

Senate Republican Whip John Thune of South Dakota said at a Tuesday press conference the caucus was “heartbroken and disgusted” by Hamas’ surprise attack that killed more than 1,300 Israelis, most of them civilians. Senate Republicans stood “in solidarity with Israel,”, and supported the country’s right to exist and to “defend itself” from the Hamas attack, he said.

But Republicans also sought additional funding for border security, criticizing Biden for not prioritizing the issue.

“The administration will send up a supplemental that deals with Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan,” McConnell said. “And Republicans are going to want something serious about the border. And so we’ll take a look at the package when they send it up, make suggestions to improve it if that’s needed, but clearly the world has changed dramatically in the last 10 days.”

Biden heads to region

Biden was scheduled to depart Tuesday evening for Israel.

Biden will “talk about how important it is for the United States and other partners to stand up for Israel and allow them to continue to defend themselves against Hamas terrorists,” White House Security Council spokesman John Kirby said in a video on X.

“The United States support will stay strong and steady,” he said.

The president will warn others in the region who may seek to widen or deepen the conflict to stay out, Kirby said.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a “prepare to deploy order” to 2,000 Defense Department personnel Monday, Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh said at a press briefing.

“This directive increases DOD’s ability to respond quickly to the evolving security environment in the Middle East,” Singh said.

Biden will also work with Israel to secure hostages, including U.S. citizens, being held by Hamas and will speak to the humanitarian situation in Gaza, Kirby said. The administration wants to see food, water and medicine flow into Gaza and that there is safe passage for civilians to get out, he said.

Biden was previously scheduled to meet with Jordanian King Abdullah, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman after departing Israel, but the White House announced late Tuesday that the president will postpone the visit after Abbas announced days of mourning.

“The President sent his deepest condolences for the innocent lives lost in the hospital explosion in Gaza, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded,” the White House said in a statement. “He looks forward to consulting in person with these leaders soon, and agreed to remain regularly and directly engaged with each of them over the coming days.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been in the region this week negotiating a safe passage for evacuees from Gaza to Egypt via Rafah and allowing humanitarian supplies to enter Gaza by the same crossing.

Former Senate Foreign Affairs Chairman Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, will not participate in a classified briefing on the Israel-Hamas war, Schumer said.

Menendez stepped down from his committee role after he was accused in a federal criminal indictment of being an unregistered agent of the Egyptian government, as well as bribery charges.

Egypt is the only country other than Israel that shares a border with Gaza.

Hospital explosion

The Pentagon could not confirm who caused the explosion at al-Ahli Arab Hospital or the number of casualties, Singh told reporters.

“I’ve seen the reports, I don’t have any more details to provide at this time,” Singh said during a televised press conference. “I don’t know who is responsible. We don’t have all the facts. And I’m sure as we learn more that will inform conversations, but right now I’m not going to go down a hypothetical road of who is responsible for something.”

“What I can tell you again is that what the secretary (Austin) has been very clear on is that we expect Israel to uphold the law of war,” Singh said.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh called the shelling a “massacre” and “horrific crime.”

Netanyahu’s office posted on X: “According to intelligence information, from several sources we have, the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization is responsible for the failed shooting that hit the hospital.”

The World Health Organization immediately condemned the “apparent attack” on the operational hospital, one of many under an evacuation order from the Israeli military.

“We call for the immediate protection of civilians and healthcare, and for the evacuation orders to be reversed,” WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus posted on X.

The United Nations has expressed concern over Israel cutting supplies to the Gaza Strip.

“Crucial life-saving supplies – including fuel, food and water – must be allowed into Gaza.  We need rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access now,” UN Chief António Guterres said in a statement.

Israel has reopened access to water in the southern Gaza, Singh said Tuesday. Israel ordered an evacuation from the north part of the territory, affecting more than 1 million civilians, last week.

The administration will continue to remind Israel not to target civilians and follow other international laws of war, but would not put conditions on U.S. aid, Singh said.

‘We need a confirmed ambassador’

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to hold a confirmation hearing Wednesday for Jack Lew to be the U.S. ambassador to Israel.

Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who chairs that committee, said Tuesday the Senate should confirm Lew promptly.

“We need a confirmed ambassador in Israel as soon as possible,” he said. “We’ll work to make sure that’s a reality as soon as possible.”

McConnell was noncommittal when asked if Republicans would support Lew, a former Treasury secretary under Democratic President Barack Obama.

“We’ll take a look at it,” McConnell said of Lew’s nomination.

President Joe Biden, joined by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, delivers remarks on the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel in the State Dining Room of the White House on Oct. 10, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

President Joe Biden will travel to Israel on Wednesday in a show of solidarity with the Middle East ally, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Monday.

Biden will “reaffirm the United States’ solidarity with Israel and our ironclad commitment to its security,” send a message to other groups and powers in the region not to attack Israel and work to secure the release of hostages still held by the militant group Hamas, Blinken said during a brief appearance Monday evening in Israel.

“President Biden will again make clear, as he’s done unequivocally since Hamas’ slaughter of more than 1,400 people, including at least 30 Americans, that Israel has the right and indeed the duty to defend its people from Hamas and other terrorists and to prevent future attacks,” Blinken said. “The president will hear from Israel what it needs to defend its people as we continue to work with Congress to meet those needs.”

Biden and top administration officials have made strong statements of support for Israel since Hamas’ surprise attack Oct. 7. Retaliatory air strikes and a siege cutting off food and other supplies to the Gaza Strip, where Hamas is based, have killed more than 2,600 in that territory as well, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry.

Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin visited Israel late last week to demonstrate support in person. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also led a bipartisan Senate delegation there that included Democrats Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Mark Kelly of Arizona and Republicans Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Mitt Romney of Utah.

Biden canceled a planned trip to Pueblo, Colorado, on Monday to instead meet with his national security team at the White House. As of Monday evening, the White House had not made any statement about the president’s travel.

Israel aid package in the works

Hamas still holds more than 199 hostages, Schumer said in a Monday floor speech, likely including U.S. citizens.

Schumer, a New York Democrat and highest ranking Jewish elected official in the U.S., said that he would work with the White House to approve an aid package to Israel that includes military, intelligence, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance.

“In the coming days, I will be working with the administration on putting together an emergency supplemental that will give Israel the tools it needs to defend itself,” Schumer said.

The Senate will act first on the package, Schumer said, as the U.S. House remains mired in a leadership crisis following the ouster of Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, also spoke Monday in support of Israel, saying the U.S. should back Israel’s “efforts to defend itself for as long as it takes.”

“This is not merely a terrorist war against Israel,” McConnell said. “It’s part of a clear and present danger to the United States and the entire civilized world. This … is a time for choosing. As Israel works to eliminate the terrorists who threaten its existence, the United States must reaffirm our commitment to Israel’s security.”

Israeli officials have said their goal is to eliminate Hamas, and many members of Congress have endorsed that objective.

But the task is complicated by Hamas’ “ability to scatter and hide within the protective shield of Gaza’s civilian population,” according to an issue brief last week by Bruce Hoffman, a senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the Washington think tank Council on Foreign Relations.

‘We are not like the evil militants of Hamas’

Schumer highlighted the need to provide humanitarian aid for civilians who have been affected by the violence and called for Israel to work to minimize civilian casualties.

“Israel has a very difficult task: to eliminate Hamas, save the hostages, but also minimize civilian casualties, which is a difficult task but one that Israel must and does strive to live up to,” Schumer said. “We are not like the evil militants of Hamas. Israel is not. In America and in Israel, the countries must hold ourselves to a higher standard. It is part of who we are as democracies.”

More than 50 U.S. House Democrats wrote to Biden and Blinken last week to urge the administration to ensure that Israel “take all due measures to limit harm to innocent civilians” and address the humanitarian crisis.

“We strongly believe that Israel’s response must take into account the millions of innocent civilians in Gaza who themselves are victims of Hamas and are suffering the consequences of their terror campaign,” they wrote.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told Blinken that peace was not imminent.“This will be a long war,” he said, according to a transcript provided by the State Department. “The price will be high. But we are going to win for Israel and the Jewish people, and for the values that both countries believe in.”

The south side of the White House is photographed from the South Lawn, Monday Aug. 29, 2022 (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith).

The Biden administration is directing $7 billion from the bipartisan infrastructure law to build seven regional hydrogen power hubs in 16 states, the White House announced Friday.

The projects, each of which is a cluster of assets that produce and process hydrogen fuel as an alternative to fossil fuels, will benefit the climate, the economy and U.S. energy security, administration officials told reporters Thursday. Officials previewed the announcement on the condition they not be named.

“Advancing clean hydrogen is essential to achieving the President’s vision of a strong clean energy economy that strengthens energy security, bolsters domestic manufacturing, creates healthier communities, and delivers new jobs and economic opportunities across the nation,” a news release from the White House said.

Congress approved the funding as part of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure law early in President Joe Biden’s term in 2021.

The projects will have assets in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New Jersey, Minnesota, South Dakota, Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, Montana, California, Delaware, Texas, North Dakota and Illinois. A hub based in Houston could “perhaps” involve Louisiana, an administration official said.

Hydrogen fuel is an important part of the administration’s goal to reach net zero emissions by 2050, the White House said.

Clean hydrogen is especially important for the most difficult sectors to decarbonize, including heavy-duty transportation and chemical, steel, and cement manufacturing, according to the release.

The hubs are expected to reduce carbon emissions by 25 million metric tons each year, the equivalent of 5.5 million gas-powered cars, the White House said. The projects will contribute about one-third of the administration’s clean hydrogen goal.

The administration projects the seven hubs will create tens of thousands of jobs and would prompt more than $40 billion in private investment, an administration official said Thursday.

Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm are scheduled to make an appearance in Philadelphia on Friday to announce a hub based there.

The projects are:

• Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, which will power the region’s manufacturing sector, according to an administration hi official. The project can take advantage of bountiful natural gas in the area, while permanently and safely storing the resulting carbon emissions, the release said.

• Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems in California, which at $1.2 billion will be the largest single hub in terms of total money.

• HyVelocity Hydrogen HubBased in Houston, “perhaps” expanding into Louisiana, which will be the largest in terms of the amount of “green hydrogen,” the cleanest form of hydrogen fuel, produced.

• Heartland Hydrogen Hub based in Minnesota with “significant” assets in North Dakota and South Dakota. That hub will use wind resources in those states, according to an official, and help decarbonize the area’s agriculture sector, according to the release.

• Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. This hub will use repurposed oil infrastructure, the release said.

• Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen in Illinois, Indiana and Southwest Michigan. The hub will produce hydrogen with nuclear power in the area. Two other sites will use nuclear power, though the Midwest site is planned to be the largest user of nuclear power, the official said. The hub will enable decarbonization of steel and glass production, power generation, refining, heavy-duty transportation, and sustainable aviation fuel, according to the release.

• Pacific NW Hydrogen Hub encompasses eastern Washington, northeast Oregon and parts of Montana. This hub will produce hydrogen exclusively from renewable energy sources, according to the news release.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken met Thursday, Oct. 12, 2023 with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (U.S. State Department photo).

As the death toll in Israel rises, the Biden administration will provide charter flights to help U.S. citizens leave the country and continued Thursday to pledge unconditional support for the Middle East ally in the aftermath of an attack by the militant group Hamas.

The number of Americans killed in Hamas’ attack that began Saturday has grown to 27, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said at a White House briefing. Fourteen Americans are unaccounted for, Kirby said.

“Five more families have now gotten the worst possible news any family can conceive of getting,” he said.

Israel has begun retaliatory airstrikes and appears to be readying a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip, where Hamas is based, according to reports.

With violence raging, some commercial airlines, including U.S. carriers, have canceled international flights out of Israeli airports. As more U.S. citizens have sought to return from Israel while commercial flights are being reduced, the State Department will arrange charter flights out of the country starting Friday for U.S. citizens and their immediate family members, Kirby said.

The administration is also looking into other options to help Americans exit the region “by land and by sea,” Kirby added.

“We’re working hard on this,” he said. “We know there’s a demand signal out there and we’re going to try the best we can to meet it.”

The State Department is also working with Israeli counterparts to free hostages held by Hamas, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during a news conference in Israel.

‘We stand with Israel’

Blinken met Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog and pledged continued support.

“I think it’s almost impossible for any of us to comprehend on a human level with what Israel has experienced at the hands of Hamas these last few days,” he said at an event with Herzog, according to a transcript from the State Department. “But we are determined to be with you as you defend your people and defend the values that join us together.”

At a news conference following his meetings with Israeli leaders, Blinken said the U.S. alliance was unshakable.

“We stand with Israel in its determination to do everything possible to ensure that what happened on Saturday never happens again,” he said.

The U.S. will continue to provide military assistance to Israel, including missiles for its Iron Dome defense system. The administration will make a funding request to Congress for further aid, he said.

“We’re working closely with Congress to ensure Israel has what it needs to do what it must,” Blinken said.

At the White House briefing, Kirby said he had no update on a funding request for Israel aid the administration plans to send to Congress. The U.S. House is currently embroiled in a prolonged fight over who will preside over the chamber as speaker, paralyzing action. The Senate is scheduled to return next week.

No peace talks in sight

The conflict — and the brutality involved — could be prolonged, Kirby warned.

“We all need to be prepared for the fact that there’s going to be additional gruesome images coming out, and there’s going to be some pretty tough reports for all of us to swallow,” he said. “This is not over.”

Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a Washington think tank, said during a panel discussion Thursday that formal peace talks were nowhere in sight.

“The prospects for a peace process as we have come to know it in recent decades are near zero,” he said. “Obviously at this moment the Israelis have no appetite for this and have said that they will resist international pressure.”

Pulling Israel into a prolonged war, which has already seen deaths of Palestinian civilians, will likely erode the international support Israel has seen since the brutal surprise attack last weekend, Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said.

“It will eventually draw some degree of international criticism and certainly regional criticism of Israel,” Takeyh said. “This is all good news from (Hamas’) perspective.”

“As the days have gone on and the Israelis have been very clear that they would like to clear Gaza, it strikes me that this is perhaps a strategic goal of Hamas is to draw the Israelis in,” Cook said.

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris met with Cabinet and national security advisers Thursday to address security threats on American soil, “including Jewish, Arab, and Muslim communities, following the attacks in Israel,” the president said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

Gaza civilians

Some progressive Democrats in Congress have called for Israel to halt military actions that hurt civilians in Gaza, an area of about 2 million people.

Israel has cut power to Gaza and has stopped the provision of supplies to the area. That move violated international law, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, said in a Thursday tweet.

“We cannot starve nearly a million children to death over the horrific actions of Hamas, whose disregard for Israeli, Palestinian, and human life overall could not be more clear,” she wrote. “We must draw a line.”

The Biden administration is holding ongoing conversations with Israeli leaders to prioritize civilian safety, Kirby said.

“It’s just part of the conversations that we’ve been having with our Israeli counterparts about the prosecution of these military operations that Palestinian people are likewise innocent civilians,” he said. “They didn’t ask Hamas to come in and do this and I think it’s always on the president’s mind, the protection of civilian life.”

Kirby declined to answer a question about if Israel’s actions violated international law, repeating that the administration is working to provide humanitarian aid.

Iran funding

Kirby said Thursday he could not confirm media reports that the U.S. and Qatar agreed to rescind Iran’s access to a $6 billion fund meant for humanitarian aid.

The U.S. approved the funding, which comes from Iranian oil sales and is to be controlled by U.S.-approved humanitarian groups, this year in exchange for Iran releasing U.S. prisoners. Many members of both parties in Congress called for freezing those assets in response to Hamas’ attacks.

Though Iran has funded Hamas and other militant groups, U.S. officials have not confirmed that Iran was involved in this attack.

None of the money in the $6 billion fund has been accessed, Kirby and Blinken both said Thursday.

CAPTION: President Joe Biden speaks during a roundtable with Jewish community leaders in the Indian Treaty Room of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building Oct. 11, 2023 in Washington, D.C. Biden spoke about U.S. support for Israel following the Hamas terrorist attacks (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

U.S. officials are working to recover American hostages from the Middle East and provide aid to Israel as violence continues in the region following last weekend’s attack by Hamas, administration and congressional leaders said Wednesday.

Speaking to Jewish community leaders at the White House late Wednesday afternoon, President Joe Biden said the administration was working to extract U.S. hostages taken by Hamas, that he was in consistent communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he condemned antisemitism and hate of all kinds.

Biden affirmed a strong U.S. commitment to Israel, saying it went beyond geopolitical interests. He invoked the Holocaust and said that without Israel, “no Jew in the world would be able to be safe.”

“The past few days have been a solemn reminder that hate never goes away,” he said. “All it does is go underground. It doesn’t go away, it just hides.”

At the White House press briefing Wednesday, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said 22 Americans are confirmed dead in Israel and 17 are unaccounted for. Officials expect those numbers to rise, she and National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said from the briefing room.

The administration is aware that several missing Americans are being held hostage by Hamas and is working to extract them, Biden said, though he said he could not provide details on those efforts.

“We’re working on every aspect of the hostage crisis in Israel, including deploying experts to advise and assist with the recovery efforts,” he said.

Biden said he knew the Jewish leaders and the news media would have questions about plans to retrieve hostages, but said he couldn’t share any details without compromising the mission.

“I have not given up hope that we can get them home,” he said. “But the idea that I’m going to stand here before you and tell you what I’m doing is bizarre.”

Evacuating Americans, Gaza civilians

More than 100 U.S. House members said in a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken they’ve received calls from constituents who are in Israel and are seeking to return and urged the secretary to help them come home.

“We urge the State Department to use all resources at its disposal, including charter flights, to help those Americans that remain in Israel and wish to return to the United States,” the letter reads.

Kirby and some members of Congress also highlighted efforts to protect civilians in the Gaza Strip, where Hamas is based.

“We’re actively discussing this with our Israeli and Egyptian counterparts,” Kirby said of evacuating civilians in Gaza. “We support safe passages for civilians. Civilians are not to blame for what Hamas has done. They didn’t do anything wrong.”

Kirby said he couldn’t announce any concrete plans Wednesday, but that civilians were protected under international law and should be given “every opportunity to avoid fighting.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking Democrat Gregory Meeks, of New York, said at a morning news conference that Palestinian civilians should not be punished for the actions of Hamas.

“I want to acknowledge that there are innocent Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank that hope to just live normal and free lives,” Meeks said. “They want nothing to do with Hamas. Hamas is their enemy, too. What the cowardly people of Hamas do is use them as human shields.

“I just want to make sure that we cannot lose sight of this,” he continued. “We must keep these Palestinian people, and their safety and livelihoods, in mind as we crush Hamas.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, criticized Israel’s response of cutting off food, water and other necessities from Gaza, calling it “a serious violation of international law” that “will do nothing but harm innocent civilians.”

Sanders, who is Jewish, said in a statement the U.S. was right to offer solidarity and aid to Israel, but “must also insist on restraint from Israeli forces attacking Gaza.”

“Let us not forget that half of the two million people in Gaza are children,” he said. “Children and innocent people do not deserve to be punished for the acts of Hamas.”

Congress calls for Iron Dome aid

Four bipartisan members of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, Democrats Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Rick Scott of Florida and Mike Rounds of South Dakota, wrote to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to request the U.S. send two batteries for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system.

Kirby said the U.S. was “able to replenish” some Iron Dome interceptor missiles. The missiles were already in Israel but in possession of the U.S. military, which “just transferred ownership” to the Israeli military, he said.

Members of both parties also called for stopping any release of the $6 billion in Iranian assets the Biden administration agreed to provide earlier this year in return for the release of U.S. prisoners.

That money is supposed to be used for humanitarian purpose— and has not been released at all yet, officials said Tuesday — but Iran has provided aid to Hamas and Hezbollah, a militant group based across Israel’s northern border in Lebanon, and lawmakers argued the humanitarian funding could allow for more money to be sent to militants.

“Based on what I heard today in our classified briefing, I believe we need to hit the pause button on any release of the funds that were part of this deal,” Michigan Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin said on X, formerly Twitter, referring to a classified briefing House members received Wednesday morning.

Several Republicans made a similar request in a letter Tuesday, and U.S. Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, supported that view in a statement Tuesday.

U.S. Senate Banking and Housing Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, said the panel “will examine the financing behind Hamas’s attacks, including whether cryptocurrency was involved, and what additional economic tools we need to stop state sponsors of terrorism, including Iran, from supporting Hamas and other terrorist groups.”

“As we work to hold any state sponsors of terrorism accountable, the administration must freeze the $6 billion in Iranian assets,” he added.

Widening the war 

Reports early Wednesday indicated Hezbollah, a militant group on Israel’s northern border that also receives backing from Iran, could be organizing an attack.

Biden and Kirby said Wednesday the administration was warning other actors not to get involved.

“We’re sending a loud and clear message that the United States is ready to take action should any actor hostile to Israel consider trying to escalate or widen this war,” Kirby said.

-Ashley Murray and Jane Norman contributed to this report.

CAPTION: President Joe Biden, joined by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, delivers remarks on the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel in the State Dining Room of the White House on Oct. 10, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden wants a returning Congress to take “urgent action” on Israel’s security needs after Hamas militants have injured and killed thousands beginning with Saturday’s brutal attack, including the deaths of 14 Americans.

U.S. citizens are also among the hostages taken into Gaza by the armed group, though the administration could not confirm the exact number Tuesday. The location of at least 20 missing Americans is unknown.

Both the administration and bipartisan members of Congress pledged unified support for Israel, but many lawmakers believe they cannot introduce or pass legislation until the U.S. House reinstates a speaker. House Republicans were meeting behind closed doors Tuesday night to hear from the leading candidates, Ohio’s Jim Jordan and Louisiana’s Steve Scalise.

The administration is poised to send available security assistance to its key ally in the Middle East, Biden said Tuesday following a phone call with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that ended just after 1 p.m. Eastern.

Biden said he told the Israeli leader that the U.S. response “would be swift, decisive and overwhelming.”

“In this moment, we must be crystal clear: We stand with Israel. We stand with Israel. And we will make sure Israel has what it needs to take care of its citizens, defend itself and respond to this attack,” Biden said from the State Dining Room as Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken stood behind him.

“There’s no justification for terrorism. There’s no excuse. Hamas does not stand for the Palestinian people’s right to dignity and self-determination. Its stated purpose is the annihilation of Israel and the murder of Jewish people.”

Blinken will travel to Israel and Jordan beginning Thursday to meet with government officials, according to the State Department.

Despite dysfunction in the U.S. House, the majority of members have vowed that reaffirming commitment to Israel will be among their first actions once a speaker is elected.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican, told reporters Monday evening that he supported a major aid package.

“It’s going to be a substantial, substantial amount of money, because I think we’re all appalled by what we’re seeing taking place there,” Diaz-Balart said. “This is an attack on civilians, this is not an attack on military facilities.”

Air and ground attacks

Hamas militants based in the Palestinian territory of Gaza launched air and ground attacks on multiple Israeli cities and villages beginning Saturday.

The conflict erupted into a full-fledged war Sunday after Netanyahu formally declared Operation Swords of Iron, which included air strikes and cutting power to Gaza, in response to the surprise attacks.

The United Nations High Commissioner Volker Türk warned against an “indiscriminate or disproportionate” retaliation against the Gaza population by Israel and expressed concern over the blocking of food, water and fuel supplies.

The Israeli death toll rose to over 1,000 Tuesday, according to the White House. Israeli news outlet Haaretz has reported that 2,400 were injured. More than 605 were hospitalized as of Monday night, Israel’s Ministry of Health reported.

Just over 4,250 Palestinians have been injured and 830 killed in Gaza since the conflict began, according to an update Tuesday from the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

Hamas has threatened to broadcast killings of hostages in response to Israel striking targets in the Gaza strip, according to Qatar-based news outlet Al Jazeera.

Hamas is holding between 100 and 150 people captive, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan said Monday.

Israel’s government press office did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for further information.

Resolution of support 

Bipartisan leaders of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Michael McCaul of Texas and ranking Democrat Gregory W. Meeks of New York, introduced a resolution Tuesday condemning the Hamas attacks and reaffirming the U.S. commitment to aid Israel.

In a written statement, McCaul said he expected it to be one of the first items the House would take up after electing a new speaker.

Meeks added that the bipartisan resolution would show that support for Israel is an area of consensus in the deeply divided chamber.

According to a list provided by McCaul’s office, 390 House members have signed on to cosponsor the resolution. The list includes Democrats who have voted against military funding for Israel.

It’s unclear if the House could even consider a resolution — let alone a bill with new aid spending for Israel — without an elected speaker.

All Democrats and eight Republicans voted to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California, from the position last week. Republicans are scheduled to vote as early as Wednesday behind closed doors, but there is no guarantee that any candidate will quickly reach a majority.

Asked if it was possible to bring an Israel aid bill to the floor without a speaker, Diaz-Balart, a senior appropriator, said no.

“Every day that we don’t have a speaker is a potential tragedy,” he said.

‘Hamas must be eradicated’

Most members of the House and Senate have expressed support for Israel in some way since the war began.

Several members of both parties have called for supporting strong retaliation by Israel.

“There can be no cease-fire, negotiated solution or peaceful coexistence with depraved barbarians who murder teen-aged girls, children & the elderly and then dump them in the streets of Gaza so bloodthirsty crowds can desecrate their bodies?” Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, posted on X, formerly Twitter.

“Hamas must be eradicated & Israel must respond DISPROPORTIONATELY to this & to any (future) attacks from any enemy,” he added.

“This is the largest attack in Israel in 50 years,” Florida Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz posted.

“The response will be the largest response in 50 years. Blame Hamas. They knew Israel would respond in kind. They didn’t care that this would get people in Gaza killed.”

Some progressives hold out

Some members of House Democrats’ progressive wing remained critical of Israeli policies and called for a cease-fire, rather than backing Israel’s offensive into Gaza.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, reposted a criticism of Moskowitz, saying the Floridian was advocating for collective punishment of Palestinian civilians rather than targeting Hamas.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat and the only current member of Congress of Palestinian descent, said in a Sunday statement she grieved for lives lost on both sides of the conflict.

Tlaib said she would work “for a just future where everyone can live in peace,” but blamed Israel’s policies, which she called “the apartheid system that creates the suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that can lead to resistance.”

“The failure to recognize the violent reality of living under siege, occupation, and apartheid makes no one safer,” she said. “No person, no child anywhere should have to suffer or live in fear of violence. We cannot ignore the humanity in each other. As long as our country provides billions in unconditional funding to support the apartheid government, this heartbreaking cycle of violence will continue.”

Tlaib, Omar — the first two Muslim women elected to Congress — and other members of the progressive “squad” in the House, including Cori Bush of Missouri, did not cosponsor the Israel resolution authored by McCaul and Meeks.

Asked Tuesday about views like those expressed by Tlaib and Omar, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre offered a strong rebuke without naming any individual members of Congress.

“We believe they’re wrong, we believe they’re repugnant and we believe they’re disgraceful,” she said from the White House briefing room. “There are not two sides here. President Biden has been clear on where he stood.”

Schumer cuts Asia trip short

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is the highest ranking Jewish U.S. official, spoke with Israeli President Isaac Herzog during a trip by a congressional delegation to East Asia, according to a statement from the New York Democrat’s office.

Schumer told Herzog he “stands ready to do whatever it takes to ensure Israel has the resources it needs.”

Republican Sens. Mike Crapo of Idaho and John Kennedy and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Democratic Sens. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Jon Ossoff of Georgia are also on the trip and participated in the call, the release said. The delegation planned to return Thursday, earlier than originally scheduled, “in light of the tragic events unfolding in Israel,” a Schumer spokeswoman said.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee also announced a confirmation hearing for Jacob Lew to be ambassador to Israel. Tom Nides, the previous Senate-confirmed ambassador to Israel stepped down in July.

Republicans, Tester call for withdrawing Iran funds

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have called on the Biden administration to rescind the $6 billion in unfrozen sanctioned funds sent to Iran in September after a prisoner swap between Iran and the U.S., fearing the money could be used to fund Hamas militants.

“To stand by and allow Iran access to these funds as Hamas infiltrates Israel and murders, rapes, and mutilates countless Israelis is unconscionable. Your administration claims these funds are only available for humanitarian use, but money is fungible, and there is a significant risk they could be used to further efforts by Iran or Hamas against Israel,” read a letter led by Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and co-signed by 18 GOP colleagues.

Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana said in a statement late Tuesday afternoon that he also supported re-freezing those assets.

“We should review our options to hold Iran accountable for any support they may have provided,” he said. “At a minimum, we should immediately freeze the $6 billion in Iranian assets and explore other financial tools we have at our disposal.”

Iran denied any involvement in the Hamas attacks on Israel, though it praised them, major foreign and domestic news outlets reported.

White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said Tuesday at the White House press briefing that the U.S. does not have intelligence confirming Iran’s involvement.

White House officials have also said that the $6 billion can be used only for humanitarian purposes. Sullivan said that none of it has been spent, further distancing that funding from any aid Iran has provided to Hamas.

Pentagon sends aid

American military planes will be landing in Israel in the coming days, and the U.S. is prepared to move additional security assets in the region, Sullivan said.

The Pentagon on Sunday announced U.S. ships would be moving closer to Israel.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin directed the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group to the Eastern Mediterranean. The group includes the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford and the guided missile cruiser USS Normandy, as well as three guided missile destroyers.

Austin also said the Pentagon is augmenting U.S. Air Force F-35, F-15, F-16, and A-10 fighter aircraft squadrons in the region.

“The U.S. maintains ready forces globally to further reinforce this deterrence posture if required,” Austin said in a statement Sunday.

“In addition, the United States government will be rapidly providing the Israel Defense Forces with additional equipment and resources, including munitions. The first security assistance will begin moving today and arriving in the coming days.”

Israel is already the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since the state was established following World War II.

As of March, cumulative funding to Israel totaled $158 billion in current dollars not adjusted for inflation. The majority of the funding has been for military assistance.

Hamas, an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya, or Islamic Resistance Movement, is the “largest and most capable” militant organization in the Palestinian territories, according to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center.

The State Department designated the group as a terrorist organization in 1997.

–Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., talks about the Hamas attack on Israel during a news conference in the Rayburn Room at the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 9, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans will gather behind closed doors beginning Monday night in an attempt to decide who should become the chamber’s next speaker, a race with a renewed sense of urgency with ally Israel now at war and the House in paralysis.

Louisiana’s Steve Scalise and Ohio’s Jim Jordan are the only candidates officially campaigning for the gavel, though California’s Kevin McCarthy, who was removed from the role just last week, left the door open to taking on the job once again.

“That’s a decision for the (House Republican) conference,” McCarthy said during a Monday morning press conference. Oklahoma’s Kevin Hern, another potential candidate, said over the weekend he would not seek the post.

House Republicans are set to meet both Monday night and Tuesday in private to discuss where the party should go in the months ahead and who should lead them. They are expected to vote behind closed doors on Wednesday on who should become the next speaker, though no floor vote following that has yet been scheduled. In the meantime, the House has no schedule set for usual floor business such as considering bills.

Much of McCarthy’s speech sounded like one he would have given if he were still speaker, laying out a five-point plan for how the United States should respond to the attacks on Israel and criticizing President Joe Biden for not doing what McCarthy believes he should.

Biden, who reiterated statements of support for Israel following the Saturday attack by Hamas, didn’t appear publicly Monday, but he met with top national security officials and was planning to talk with allies later in the day, according to a White House pool report.

McCarthy advised House Republicans not to cave to a small group who ousted him last week, voting with all Democrats. McCarthy was able to become speaker in January because he made concessions to a group of hard-right Republicans, including agreeing to allowing a motion to vacate by a single member — the procedure that stripped him of his position.

“Is our conference just gonna select somebody to try to throw them out in another 35 days if eight people don’t get 100% of what they want and 96% of the conference does?” he said. “For the idea that you allow eight people to continue to do that with no consequences, no one’s gonna be successful.”

While McCarthy did not deny that he would run again for speaker, he reiterated that he is a “conservative that believes in governing in a conservative way.”

With the war in Israel, McCarthy stressed that the U.S. needs to stand with its allies to “counter this axis of power,” citing Russia, China and Iran, an ally of Hamas. McCarthy specifically called out Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, but stopped short of supporting supplemental aid to Ukraine, and instead called for border security.

Of the two candidates running for the speaker’s gavel, Scalise originally backed aid to Ukraine, though Jordan voted against it. Both have voted against the last two aid bills, though that funding was included in large packages that included other provisions.

Speaker pro tem questions

McCarthy on Monday also appeared to lay the groundwork for the House operating longer without an elected speaker, saying that there could be a path forward for the speaker pro tempore to do more than North Carolina’s Patrick McHenry has done while in the role. McHenry is McCarthy’s handpicked successor under a procedure established after the 9/11 attacks.

“I think at a moment in time our conference needs to decide who should lead,” McCarthy said.

If that can’t be decided, “we shouldn’t sit back” and allow that situation to continue, he said.

The role of speaker pro tempore created in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks was designed to bolster continuity of government following a catastrophic event, though there is some debate about how much power that role actually holds.

In their meetings, House Republicans are likely to discuss the so-called motion to vacate that currently allows one member of the chamber to force a vote on keeping or removing the speaker. Florida’s Matt Gaetz used that last week to force McCarthy out.

Some House Republicans have called for changing the House rules to increase the number of lawmakers needed to call for a vote to remove the speaker.

Scalise, Jordan and Israel

Neither Scalise nor Jordan made public speeches on Monday in the way McCarthy did, though both have expressed support for Israel.

Scalise, currently House majority leader, wrote on X over the weekend that the “United States will always stand with Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East. They must defend themselves as their citizens are slaughtered by Hamas terrorists. They have our full support and our prayers.”

“The videos coming out of Israel are horrific,” Scalise wrote. “We cannot allow anyone to lie about what’s happening here or call it anything other than what it is: terrorism against innocent Israeli civilians and war waged on our ally. Period.”

Jordan, chair of the Judiciary Committee, posted on X on Sunday that the United States should help Israel by supplying military aid.

“Rockets are raining down on Israeli towns right now. We need to immediately help replenish Israel’s stockpile of Iron Dome missiles to protect more innocent civilians from getting killed. Let’s make sure Congress can unite and assure Israel has what it needs to destroy Hamas,” Jordan wrote.

White House meetings

Biden met Monday with top officials, including Secretary of State Tony Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer, Homeland Security Advisor Liz Sherwood-Randall and White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, according to a White House pool report.

“He directed his team to follow up on coordination with Israel on all aspects of the crisis and to continue their work with regional partners to warn anyone who might seek to take advantage in this situation,” according to the pool report.

Biden was planning to speak with “close allies about the latest developments in Israel,” according to the report.

State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller confirmed Monday that nine Americans were killed in Israel.

“We extend our deepest condolences to the victims and to the families of all those affected,” Miller said.

Miller added that there are unaccounted Americans and that the State Department is “working with our Israeli partners to determine their whereabouts.”

Finer said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Monday that the administration would seek to provide military aid to Israel, but was vague about what form the aid would take.

“We expect more U.S. steps to show support and solidarity for Israel will unfold” in the coming days and weeks, Finer said.

McCarthy supporters speak out

On Capitol Hill, several of McCarthy’s allies were publicly calling for him to join the race for speaker, though the GOP lawmakers who voted to remove him just last week said the numbers wouldn’t be there during a floor vote.

Rep. Carlos Gimenez, a Florida Republican, said on Fox News on Monday that he hopes McCarthy runs again for speaker.

“I would hope that the speaker (McCarthy) would reconsider, put his name in the hat and we could move on, get past this episode and put him back where he belongs,” Gimenez said.

South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace, who voted to remove McCarthy last week, criticized him for not focusing more on defense funding.

“If the former Speaker had spent as much time going after Chuck Schumer for not taking up our DoD military spending bill as he is attacking other Republicans, he wouldn’t be the former Speaker,” Mace wrote on X.

House Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., is pursued by reporters as he returns to the offices of former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., at the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 4, 2023 in Washington, D.C. The process is underway to replace McCarthy, who was ousted from the speakership on Oct. 3 by a group of conservative members of his own Republican Party along with all the Democratic members of the House of Representatives (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

U.S. Capitol. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Idaho Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo will lead a bipartisan delegation to China, Japan and South Korea next week, Schumer’s office said Tuesday.

The trip, scheduled for a week when the Senate will not be in session, comes amid escalating tensions with China, including the country’s internet regulator banning Boise-based Micron Technology, the largest U.S. memory chip maker.

The Chinese government cited national security concerns, but the move was also seen by some as retaliation for the U.S. government banning equipment from Chinese producers Huawei and ZTE in November.

In addition to its Idaho headquarters, Micron announced last year the semiconductor maker would spend up to $100 billion to build a factory in New York state, which Schumer represents.

Micron also has a plant in Japan, which pledged nearly $1.3 billion Tuesday to support that site.

South Korea has a substantial microchip sector, which could benefit from China’s ban on Micron, though the U.S. ally has so far declined to capitalize on the situation.

The senators would focus on maintaining U.S. leadership in advanced technologies, Schumer’s office said.

The other senators on the trip are Louisiana Republicans Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy and Democrats Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Jon Ossoff of Georgia.

Cassidy told reporters on a telephone news conference Tuesday that the trip was intended to reduce tensions with China, address the issue of fentanyl from China entering the U. S. and promoting trade with the country. China could be a market for liquified natural gas, which is exported from the U.S. primarily from facilities on Louisiana’s Gulf Coast, he said.

Meeting with Chinese leaders could reduce the prospects of an eventual war with China, he said.

“It’s no mystery right now that there’s tension right now between the Chinese Communist Party and the United States of America,” Cassidy said. “Hopefully, by exchanging views, we can reduce that tension. We do not want war between our two countries. I don’t want American troops deployed.”

Promoting liquified natural gas could help boost Louisiana’s economy and reduce emissions from Chinese coal plants, he added.

“They could buy U.S. natural gas shipped out of Louisiana,” he said. “That would clean up their air. It would also create more jobs in Louisiana.”

The trip will feature meetings with government and business leaders in each country and would focus on “economic and national security interests in the region,” a spokesperson for Cassidy said Tuesday. The senators also plan to meet with U.S. companies with outposts in each country.

Cassidy introduced a bill last week aimed at protecting his state’s shrimping industry that would create a U.S. Trade Office task force to monitor upcoming Chinese industrial subsidies.

In a written statement a spokesperson for Ossoff said the senator was focused on national security and economic issues.

“From his post on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Ossoff is relentlessly focused on U.S. national security, and he continues to champion Georgia as a destination for global investment,” the spokesperson wrote. “Later this week, Sen. Ossoff will travel to Asia for high-level engagements to advance U.S. national security interests and Georgia’s economic interests in the region.”

–Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy takes questions from reporters on Friday, Sept. 29, 2023 at the U.S. Capitol (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — A sweeping government shutdown appeared inevitable on Friday, with the U.S. Senate stuck in a procedural holding pattern on its bipartisan stopgap bill and divided U.S. House Republicans unable to pass their short-term spending bill.

Both chambers of Congress must approve and President Joe Biden must sign government funding legislation before midnight on Saturday, otherwise a funding lapse would begin on Oct. 1.

But mid-afternoon Friday, a month-long funding bill packed with steep spending cuts drafted by some of the more conservative members of the House GOP failed to pass, 198-232. Twenty-one Republican members opposed it. The measure would have had no future in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Missouri’s delegation split on Friday’s vote, with Republican Eric Burlison joining Democrats Cori Bush and Emanuel Cleaver in opposition. GOP Reps. Mark Alford, Sam Graves, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Jason Smith and Ann Wagner voted in favor.

House leaders following that vote announced they will be in session and voting on Saturday, though on what was not immediately clear ahead of a GOP conference meeting in the late afternoon.

The mood lagged in the U.S. Capitol on Friday, where workers and law enforcement chatted in the hallways and cafeterias about the prospect of working without pay.

More than 3.5 million federal employees would either work without pay or be furloughed if the government shuts down. Federal employees would receive back pay after the shutdown ends, though that provision has not extended to federal contractors in the past.

U.S. troops, roughly 1.3 million people, would be required to work without pay until the shutdown ended.

A partial government shutdown wouldn’t have broad impacts on so-called mandatory spending programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, because those accounts are not predominantly funded through the annual appropriations process.

A shutdown would have varying effects on the dozens of departments and agencies that do rely on Congress to approve new spending bills each year.

Those include the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs. Almost all services for veterans would continue, however.

Other activities were affected as well by the looming shutdown — former President Jimmy Carter’s 99th birthday party at the Carter Center in Atlanta was moved up to Saturday instead of Sunday.

Border security and spending cuts

During debate on the failed GOP bill, Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan said the legislation would fund the government, cut spending and “secure the border.” GOP lawmakers attached a border security bill they passed earlier this year to the short-term funding bill.

“Three simple, common sense things, but the most important of those three is … the border situation,” Jordan said.

Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the stopgap spending bill would be a “gift basket to far-right extremists” that will “slingshot” the federal government into a shutdown.

“The gutting cuts in this bill do not continue current funding like we’ve historically done in continuing resolutions,” she said. “Instead, this so-called CR slashes cancer and Alzheimer’s research, defunds the police, undercuts allies like Israel and Ukraine.”

House Republicans’ stopgap spending bill would have cut funding below current levels, resulting in billions less available for federal departments and agencies. The departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs would have been exempted from those cuts.

White House budget director Shalanda Young argued during a Friday briefing that Speaker Kevin McCarthy should stick to the spending deal he and the president brokered in May.

“The speaker wanted to set toplines, we set them,” Young said.

Young criticized House Republicans for not agreeing to the Senate stopgap bill that would last through Nov. 17 to give lawmakers more time to come to an agreement to pass the 12 appropriations bill into law.

“This is not hard,” Young said. “It is not meant to come back and negotiate and redo things we just agreed to do three months ago. It is to keep the government open to give congressional negotiators more time on long-term bills.”

McCarthy, a California Republican, said during a press conference before the House vote that he would likely keep trying to pass a short-term funding bill ahead of the Oct. 1 deadline.

“You have watched me time and again — have you ever known me to quit after one time if it doesn’t succeed?” McCarthy said. “I don’t stop.”

Senate working on stopgap

The Senate released a broadly bipartisan stopgap spending bill earlier this week and has since taken two procedural votes to advance the measure.

But that chamber’s rules don’t allow the Senate to vote on final passage before the Saturday midnight deadline without the consent of all 100 lawmakers.

Kentucky’s GOP Sen. Rand Paul has said he won’t allow a vote as long as the $6.1 billion in additional aid for Ukraine is in the legislation. But party leaders in the Senate aren’t seriously considering removing the Ukraine money.

And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the senior GOP senator from Kentucky, warned against forcing a government shutdown Thursday, saying it would be “an actively harmful proposition.”

“Instead of producing any meaningful policy outcomes, it would actually take the important progress being made on a number of key issues and drag it backward,” McConnell said.

Republican senators are trying to draft an amendment to the stopgap bill that would increase spending on border security and make policy changes, a move they hope would encourage House GOP leaders to put the bill on the floor.

Senate Minority Whip John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said Friday that everything was still “up in the air,” but that he was “hopeful” senators would work out an agreement before the deadline.

“I still think there’s something that can get through here before the deadline tomorrow night,” Thune said. “What exactly it looks like, I think, is still not totally resolved.”

Indiana Republican Sen. Mike Braun said following a closed-door meeting Friday afternoon that “nothing’s really coming together” because there are “too many moving parts at this stage.”

It wasn’t clear if there would be enough GOP support for the bipartisan Senate CR to move past a procedural hurdle Saturday that requires at least 60 votes, Braun said.

“It looks like probably what’s going to have to happen is something with clarity is going to have to come out of the House,” Braun said. “And I don’t know what that would be, because there was a vote that just didn’t work.”

The stalemate, he said, is at the “worst point” since he’s been a senator.

Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt said senators want to make sure whatever they vote on is “compatible” with their House Republican colleagues.

“So we’ll see what they come up with in the morning. In the meantime, we’re going to continue to work on these measures,” Britt said. “We want to be prepared.”

Veterans health, WIC, SNAP, parks

Among agencies, the Department of Veterans Affairs would be largely exempt from the impacts since the VA is funded in advance, a rare exception to how Congress typically handles federal funding for so-called discretionary programs, which make up about one-third of annual federal spending.

The VA says that about 15,620 of its 450,000 employees would be furloughed during a shutdown and several of its programs would be put on hold, including the education call center or GI Bill hotline, career outreach and permanent headstone installations at veterans’ cemeteries.

Veterans would continue receiving health care as well as education and pension benefits.

Almost 7 million people within the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, also called WIC, could lose access to the program during a partial government shutdown.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Monday that the “vast majority of WIC participants would see an immediate reduction and elimination of those benefits, which means the nutrition assistance that’s provided would not be available.”

Vilsack, a former Iowa governor, said that USDA has a contingency fund for WIC, but that it would only last a day or two.

He added that another nutrition program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, has enough funding to last the month of October in the event of a government shutdown. There are about 40 million low-income people who rely on SNAP.

“Now, if the shutdown were to extend longer than that, there would be some serious consequences to SNAP,” Vilsack also said on Monday.

Vilsack added that amid a partial government shutdown, it will be nearly impossible for Congress to pass a new farm bill. Every five years, lawmakers must write a sweeping farm bill to set policy and funding levels for farm, food, nutrition and conservation programs.

This year’s farm bill is set to expire Sept. 30, but lawmakers typically finish it by the end of the year. The 2018 farm bill was signed into law in December of that year.

National Park officials would need to close off access to most of the country’s 425 parks, recreation areas and national historic sites during a shutdown.

The IRS would continue processing certain payments, maintaining its computer networks and printing and designing tax forms for the upcoming year. However, some taxpayer services will cease during the non-filing season. Call sites that respond to taxpayer questions will be closed during a funding lapse.

Several sources of federal aid to states will also be affected, Tim Storey, the CEO of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said in a written statement Friday.

“A shutdown creates uncertainty for states and impedes access to vital federal programs,” Storey said. “While states may not feel the immediate effects, critical state services that receive federal funding such as (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), disaster relief efforts, cybersecurity and child nutrition may be put in jeopardy if Congress does not come to an agreement quickly.”

Road projects on track

Most federal funding for highways and transit, including the daily reimbursements to state departments of transportation and transit agencies, will continue without interruption.

Those programs are funded through the Highway Trust Fund, not annual appropriations. The trust fund was reauthorized in the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. The law also provided five years of advanced appropriations for highway and transit spending, meaning that the workers at the U.S. Department of Transportation who process those payments can remain at work with pay through a partial shutdown.

That means federal money for construction of roads, bridges and transit would continue to flow to state coffers.

“If it’s a highway or mass transit project everybody should be at work and fully funded and able to do all of the things on Oct. 2 that they were able to do on Sept. 29,” Jeff Davis, a senior fellow at the national transportation think tank Eno Center for Transportation, said on a Friday webinar.

Air turbulence ahead

Air travel, meanwhile, could see disruptions.

Air traffic controllers, considered essential to protect life and safety, would be required to work without pay.

Federal employees were scheduled to receive a regular paycheck Friday, before a potential partial shutdown. The first paycheck they miss would be Oct. 13, if the partial shutdown is still ongoing then.

If a funding lapse persists that long, the air traffic controllers could begin work slowdowns, leading to air travel delays and cancellations.

Air traffic controllers are forbidden by law from striking, but the last partial shutdown saw several call in sick rather than work without pay.

“Imagine the pressure that a controller is already under every time they take their position at work,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said at a Sept. 27 news conference. “And then imagine the added stress of coming to that job from a household with a family that can no longer count on that paycheck.”

In addition to hurting morale in the short-term, a shutdown would ruin training programs for air traffic controllers, Buttigieg said.

“We would immediately have to stop training new air traffic controllers and furlough another 1,000 controllers who are already in the training pipeline,” he said. “The complexity of the hiring and training process means even a shutdown lasting a few days could mean we will not hit our staffing and hiring targets next year.”

Other employees that would be required to work during the partial government shutdown include those in the Transportation Security Administration under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Of the nearly 61,000 TSA employees, the agency expects nearly 58,000 to continue security checks across the nation’s airports.

In addition to funding lapses for most federal programs, the authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration expires at midnight Saturday, meaning that the trust funds that operate outside the normal appropriations process could not fund operations as they do for highways.

Even a short-term funding bill without an FAA extension is in practice the same as not having a short-term bill, Davis said.

“The budget authority is not available because the underlying trust fund from which it’s drawn doesn’t exist at the moment,” he said.

Parks to shutter

Almost all National Park Service sites that they are physically able to block access to would close.

“At NPS sites across the country, gates will be locked, visitor centers will be closed, and thousands of park rangers will be furloughed,” the Interior Department, which oversees the NPS, said Friday.

States and nonprofit groups can work with the federal government to fund park operations. The governors of Arizona and Utah have said they will seek such agreements this year. But even those sites may see a disruption in access as agreements are finalized and funding is secured.

Mount Rushmore National Monument in South Dakota, for example, was closed for the first three days of the 16-day shutdown in 2013. After a blizzard, the park reopened for the last three days of the shutdown with the help of nonprofit donations and an agreement with South Dakota’s state government, Cheryl Schreier, the former Mount Rushmore superintendent, said in a Friday interview.

Park sites stayed open with a minimal workforce during the 2018-2019 shutdown. U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking Republican John Barrasso of Wyoming called for the Interior Department to do the same this year and criticized the decision to close parks.

“The Biden administration has the ability to keep our nation’s parks open and accessible,” he said in a statement. “Instead, they’re deliberately trying to make a government shutdown as painful as possible for American families and visitors alike.”

But the Government Accountability Office said the decision to keep parks open during the shutdown was illegal. And park advocates have said remaining open without enough workers created problems.

Visitors to Mount Rushmore during the 2018-2019 shutdown “were very confused,” Schreier said. Trash and even human waste piled up as visitors couldn’t find open bathrooms.

Law enforcement officials, not visitor services employees, comprised most of the workforce.

“It makes it difficult when you don’t have, obviously, the adequate staff,” Schreier said.

Historic, cultural sites to close

Public tours of the U.S. Capitol will cease, as the Congressional Visitor Center would close down during a funding lapse. This includes tours of the complex’s storied dome.

U.S. Capitol Police will continue to report to work to secure the complex, but they will do so without pay.

“I’ve sent my membership updates to prepare for a shutdown if it happens, which it looks like it will,” said Gus Papathanasiou, chairman of the USCP Labor Committee. “I’m hoping a shutdown doesn’t happen because with the cost of living higher than ever, this shutdown will create an enormous hardship.”

Workers with the Architect of the Capitol, the office charged with maintaining the Capitol buildings and grounds, will continue to work in a limited capacity without pay.

USCP officers and Capitol maintenance staff will receive back pay upon the end of a shutdown.

The Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo will remain open until at least Oct. 7, even if a partial government shutdown is triggered this weekend, according to the institution’s contingency plan released Thursday.

The institution, which employs nearly 4,000 across its several locations, will continue to use fund balances from prior years until they are exhausted.

Just over 1,100 Smithsonian workers will remain on the job during the shutdown to care for animals, continue lab experiments, maintain library archives and secure the facilities.

Student loan repayments

Federal student loan repayment officially begins Oct. 1, and regardless of a shutdown, those payments are still due.

“Even if extreme House Republicans needlessly shut down the government, loan payments will continue to be due starting this month,” a spokesperson from the Department of Education said in a statement to States Newsroom.

The Biden administration did launch a one-year on-ramp program where borrowers with federal student loans won’t be faulted for not repaying their loans. However, interest will still accrue.

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, in a contingency plan, said the department would furlough 90% of its staff. There are about 4,000 full-time and part-time employees.

Programs that would still run because they are mandatory include Pell Grants and Federal Direct Student Loans.

Some programs that would lapse include the development and awarding of grants. The Office for Civil Rights would pause its reviews and investigations and guidance and regulatory actions.

The Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona. Most national park sites would be shuttered if a government shutdown begins this weekend, the Interior Department says (Photo courtesy National Park Service).

Almost all National Park Service sites will be inaccessible during a partial federal government shutdown likely to start this weekend, the U.S. Interior Department said Friday.

The agency will bar access to most of the nation’s 425 parks, recreation areas, national historic sites and other units, according to a fact sheet from the Interior Department, which oversees the NPS.

“At NPS sites across the country, gates will be locked, visitor centers will be closed, and thousands of park rangers will be furloughed,” the fact sheet reads. “Accordingly, the public will be encouraged not to visit sites during the period of lapse in appropriations out of consideration for protection of natural and cultural resources, as well as visitor safety.”

Units that “by their nature, are physically accessible to the public,” such as the National Mall in Washington, D.C., will remain open. Likewise, areas of some parks that are physically accessible, including park roads, trails, campsites and open-air memorials, will remain accessible, the department said.

But areas that remain open will operate with “significantly reduced” services, the department said.

Interior had not previously revealed its plans for dealing with a funding lapse, though advocates expected reduced access.

Some state governments have pledged to use state funds to keep parks in their states open.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, said she’d use state lottery revenue to maintain access to Grand Canyon National Park.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, said Thursday “the state has identified short-term funding options” to keep its five national parks open. Both states made similar moves during the 2013 shutdown, the last time parks closed for a lapse in funding.

The fact sheet said National Park Service Director Charles F. Sams III would have to approve any such agreement. Interior and the NPS have not said if Sams has approved such plans.

Cox said the department had not authorized his plan.

Agreements between states and the Park Service could take a few days from the onset of a shutdown.

A senior Interior official said Thursday the NPS and Interior were “prepared to engage in those discussions with states.” The official spoke with reporters by phone on the condition he not be named.

The deadline for Congress to fund government programs is Saturday at midnight. The U.S. Senate is set to vote near the deadline on a continuing resolution to keep the government funded at existing levels.

But the U.S. House — where several far-right members oppose a short-term funding bill — has not shown progress toward a deal that would avoid a partial shutdown.

Procedures to close the parks would begin Sunday and likely continue into Monday, the official said.

The plan to close access to parks is similar to the approach the Obama administration took in 2013 but differs from the Trump administration’s in 2018 and 2019.
Under President Donald Trump, the Park Service used visitor fees to fund operations, but also deeply cut services. The approach was “reckless,” according to parks advocates and incurred lasting damage to park sites.

(Getty Images)

Artificial intelligence could be used to disrupt U.S. election campaigns, members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration said during a Wednesday hearing.

But the hearing showed that imposing laws and regulations on campaign content without violating constitutional rights to political speech will be difficult.

Elections pose a particular challenge for AI, an emerging technology with potential to affect many industries and issues, committee Chair Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, said. AI can make it easier to doctor photos and videos, creating fictional content that appears real to viewers.

Klobuchar called that “untenable for democracy.”

Klobuchar said the hearing underscored the need for Congress to impose guardrails for the use of AI in elections. Klobuchar is the lead sponsor of a bipartisan bill, with Republicans Josh Hawley of Missouri and Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Chris Coons of Delaware, that would ban the use of AI to make deceptive campaign materials.

“With AI, the rampant disinformation we have seen in recent years will quickly grow in quantity and quality,” she said. “We need guardrails to protect our elections.”

But some Republicans on the panel, and two expert witnesses, also warned that regulating AI’s use in elections would be difficult — and perhaps unwise — because of the potential impact on First Amendment-protected political speech.

“A law prohibiting AI-generated political speech would also sweep an enormous amount of protected and even valuable political discourse under its ambit,” said Ari Cohn, free speech counsel for TechFreedom, a technology think tank.

Election risks

Klobuchar twice used an example of AI-generated deep-fake images, meaning wholly false images meant to look real, that appeared to show former President Donald Trump hugging Anthony Fauci. Fauci is the former leader of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who is deeply unpopular with some sections of the Republican electorate because of his positions on COVID-19.

The images were used in a campaign ad by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who along with Trump, is running for the 2024 Republican nomination for president.

Trevor Potter, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission, testified that election laws are intended to help voters by requiring transparency about who pays for political speech and who is speaking. AI could upend those goals and make interference by foreign or domestic adversaries easier, he said.

“Unchecked, the deceptive use of AI could make it virtually impossible to determine who is truly speaking in a political communication, whether the message being communicated is authentic or even whether something being depicted actually happened,” Potter said. “This could leave voters unable to meaningfully evaluate candidates and candidates unable to convey their desired message to voters, undermining our democracy.”

Klobuchar asked the panel of five witnesses if they agreed AI posed at least some risk to elections, which they appeared to affirm.

Misinformation and disinformation in elections is particularly important for communities of color, said Maya Wiley, the CEO of the Leadership Conference On Civil And Human Rights.

Black communities and those whose first language is not English have been disproportionately targeted in recent elections, including material generated by Russian agents in 2016, she said.

First Amendment concerns

Misinformation in campaigns has been attempted without AI, said Neil Chilson, a researcher at the Center For Growth And Opportunity at Utah State University. Deception, not the technology, is the problem, he said.

“If the concern is with a certain type of outcome, let’s focus on the outcome and not the tools used to create it,” Chilson said in response to questioning from ranking Republican Deb Fischer of Nebraska.

Writing legislation narrowly enough to target deceptive uses of AI without interfering with common campaign practices would be difficult, Chilson said.

“I know we all use the term deep fake, but the line between deep fake and tweaks to make somebody look slightly younger in their ad is pretty blurry,” Chilson said. “And drawing that line in legislation is very difficult.”

If a federal law existed, especially with heavy penalties, the result would be to “chill a lot of speech,” he added.

U.S. Sen. Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican, said he didn’t trust the Biden administration and Congress to properly balance concerns about fraudulent material with speech rights and fostering the emergence of AI, which has the potential for many positive uses in addition to possible nefarious ones.

While he said he saw issues with AI, Congress should be careful in its approach, he said.

“Congress and the Biden administration should not engage in heavy-handed regulation with uncertain impacts that I believe pose a great risk to limiting political speech,” he said. “We shouldn’t immediately indulge the impulse for government to just do something, as they say, before we fully understand the impacts of the emerging technology, especially when that something encroaches on political speech.”

Difficult, not impossible

Responding to Hagerty, Klobuchar promoted her bill that would ban outright fraud that is created by AI.

“That is untenable in a democracy,” she said.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon testified that while it may be difficult for courts and lawmakers to determine what content crosses a line into fraud, there are ways to navigate those challenges.

“Sen. Hagerty is correct and right to point out that this is difficult and that Congress and any legislative body needs to get it right,” he said. “But though the line-drawing exercise might be difficult, courts are equipped … to draw that line.”

Congress should require disclaimers for political ads that use AI, but such a requirement shouldn’t replace the power to have content removed from television, radio and the internet if it is fraudulent, Klobuchar said.

She added that in addition to banning “the most extreme fraud,” her priorities in legislation that could see action this year would be to give the FEC more authority to regulate AI-generated content, and requiring disclaimers from platforms that carry political ads.

A group of bison cross the road in Yellowstone National Park near the Madison River in April 2023 (Clark Corbin/Idaho Capital Sun).

National parks and nearby communities could forego millions of dollars per day during a partial government shutdown that could start this weekend.

Would-be visitors will likely see restrictions on park access, though the extent of those restrictions was still unclear just days before a potential lapse in federal appropriations set to begin Sunday. Parks would lack the regular funds used for daily operations, but some could be covered temporarily by states or other funding sources.

The National Park Service furloughed about seven out of every eight workers during shutdowns in October 2013 and December 2018-January 2019, according to a report last week from the Congressional Research Service.

But the Interior Department took different approaches to visitor access in each shutdown under presidents of different parties.

In 2013, under Democratic President Barack Obama, parks were closed to the extent possible, and visitors asked to leave. Concessionaires inside parks closed and park roads, where possible, were blocked.

In 2018 and 2019, under Republican Donald Trump, most parks remained at least partially open with services reduced. In part, that approach relied on visitor fees, which was legally dubious. It also left visitors without access to even basic services like restrooms and trash removal.

That move also left parks severely understaffed and irresponsibly put visitor health and safety — and the wellbeing of the parks themselves — at risk, said John Garder, senior director for budget and appropriations at the advocacy group National Parks Conservation Association.

“The decision of the last administration to keep parks open using fees was reckless,” Garder said.

The parks had limited resources to educate visitors, he said. Some used sensitive areas of Joshua Tree National Park for camping, damaging the park’s delicate namesake flora, he said.

No shutdown plan online 

But the Interior Department has not updated its plan of action in the event of a shutdown as a funding lapse approaches.

The 2019 plan has been removed from a White House Office of Management and Budget web page listing all current agency and department shutdown plans but had not been replaced by Tuesday afternoon.

“When the Department has final lapse plans, they will be published,” Interior spokesperson Melissa Schwartz wrote in a Monday email. Department spokespeople declined further comment.

NPS parkways, such as the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina and Virginia, would likely stay open because of the difficulty in closing them.

Government funding is set to lapse Oct. 1. The U.S. House Republican Conference, which controls that chamber, has shown little progress in resolving internal disputes about whether and how to reduce federal spending, leaving negotiations over regular spending bills as well as a short-term stop-gap measure to keep the government open at a standstill.

Lost revenue and research

If park access is severely restricted, every day of a shutdown next month could result in 1 million fewer visitors to national parks, Garder said.

Visitors seeking to enter many parks — including those on long-planned trips or celebrating weddings and other special events — would likely be turned away, Garder said.

It would also mean a roughly $70 million per day loss for so-called gateway communities outside park boundaries whose economies largely depend on tourism, according to the NPCA.

“It’s deeply disappointing for visitors, but it’s alarming and disheartening for those who worry about their bottom lines, and for park employees, whose morale is deeply affected,” Garder said.

The 16-day 2013 shutdown saw a loss of nearly 8 million visitors and $414 million in economic activity, according to a 2014 NPS report cited by the Congressional Research Service.

A government funding lapse could also threaten long-term scientific research and park assets.

For example, a 60-year study of wolves and moose on Isle Royale, an island park 15 miles from Minnesota in Lake Superior, was interrupted by the 2018-2019 shutdown.

And the damage to the desert-dwelling Joshua trees from campers also showed the potential long-term harm to parks, said Lisa Frank, the executive director of the federal legislative office for the advocacy group Environment America.

“These trees grow very, very slowly,” she said. “They’re in a really harsh environment, that it’s totally a miracle that they grow at all in that part of the world. And so damage to some of those trees, when they’re already suffering from climate change and everything else, is a pretty severe problem.”

Senate Republican calls for parks to stay open

U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that has jurisdiction over the Park Service, wrote to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland last week asking to use visitor fees to cover operational costs during a shutdown.

The NPS used fees collected under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to keep parks open to visitors during the last shutdown and could do so again, he said.

“Your judicious use of FLREA fees will protect the millions of people who plan and save for trips to these special places, ensure that gateway communities that rely on park visitation for jobs and economic stabilities do not needless suffer, and sustain the dedicate National Park Service employees who rely on a regular paycheck,” Barrasso wrote.

But the Trump administration’s use of those funds was illegal, the Government Accountability Office found, as those fees were supposed to be used for other purposes.

State funding?

In previous shutdowns, states have signed memoranda of understanding with the federal government to allow state funds to cover park costs and keep them open, Garder said.

In Arizona, Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, said last week she would sign an executive order to use state lottery revenue to keep Grand Canyon National Park open during a shutdown, according to The Associated Press. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey spent about $200,000 to keep that park open in 2019.

While on sounder legal footing than using entrance fees, Garder said state partnerships do not excuse federal lawmakers from passing a spending law.

“It’s certainly not a long-term solution,” he said.