(ATLANTA, Georgia) — A judge scheduled a hearing on former President Donald Trump’s motion to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.
The motion also seeks to quash the special purpose grand jury report that gathered much of the evidence in the case.
The hearing is set for Thursday, August 10 at 10 a.m., and all briefs on the issue are due two days prior, on August 8. The hearing comes as charges in the case could be imminent — Willis previously said in a letter that she would be announcing her charging decisions by Sept. 1.
Earlier this month, Trump filed his motion seeking to disqualify Willis from the investigation and quash the report generated by the Special Purpose Grand Jury — claiming it is “fruit of a process that was both unlawful on its face and unlawful its application.”
“[Trump] now sits on a precipice,” the filings states. “A regular Fulton County grand jury could return an indictment any day that will have been based on a report and predicate investigative process that were wholly without authority.”
The Supreme Court of Georgia previously denied a similar motion by Trump and his team.
The filling claims the report is “targeting” Trump, and therefore “could not have comported with the process of laws that he was due under the 14th amendment and the Georgia Bill of Rights.”
“Yet, at every turn, the Supervising Judge and the District Attorney have trampled the procedural safeguards for Petitioner’s and other’s rights,” Trump’s filing states. “The whole of the process is now incurably infected. And nothing that follows could be legally sound or publicly respectable.”
The special purpose grand jury sat for approximately eight months and heard testimony from over 75 witnesses. That grand jury did not have the power to return indictments.
Trump had also filed this motion against the Fulton County judge overseeing the DA’s case, resulting in all of the Superior Court judges in Fulton County being recused.
Senior Superior Court Judge Stephen Schuster, who was previously a judge in the nearby Cobb County, was assigned to the case and ordered the hearing.
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Justice’s superseding indictment of former President Donald Trump and two co-defendants revealed new allegations that they allegedly mishandled government documents and plotted to block the federal investigation.
Carlos De Oliveira, the head of maintenance at the Florida residence, has been charged along with Trump and Walt Nauta, Trump’s valet, with conspiracy to obstruct justice.
The updated indictment, released Thursday, also charged the three defendants with two new obstruction counts based on new details about an alleged attempt to delete Mar-a-Lago security footage.
Alleged discussions over Mar-a-Lago security footage
The three defendants had been engaged in several discussions about the security camera footage, which was the subject of a federal subpoena issued on June 24, 2022, according to the indictment.
On June 27, 2022, De Oliveira walked to Mar-a-Lago’s IT department and asked the department’s director to come with him, the indictment said. The two allegedly went into an “audio closet” near the White and Gold ballroom, and De Oliveira allegedly told the employee that “the boss” wanted the server deleted, the indictment alleges.
De Oliveira also allegedly asked the unidentified employee how long the server kept footage, to which the employee responded approximately 45 days, according to the indictment.
“What are we going to do?” De Oliveira allegedly said.
Later in the day, De Oliveira spoke with Nauta over text and in person, and De Oliveira spoke with Trump in person, the indictment said.
At this time, it isn’t known if the security footage was deleted.
More details disclosed in Trump classified document conversation
The superseding indictment now charges Trump with allegedly possessing the classified document that he was previously heard on audio tape discussing during a July 21, 2021, interview at his Bedminster estate.
The discussion was previously described in the special counsel’s first version of the indictment, where Trump is heard appearing to acknowledge he held onto a sensitive military document after leaving office — but could no longer declassify it because he was no longer president.
“Wait a minute, let’s see here. I just found, isn’t that amazing?” Trump says in the recording, which was later obtained by ABC News. “This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. This was done by the military and given to me. As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t.”
Trump gave an interview to Fox News after his indictment where he denied that the material in his possession at Bedminster was a classified document and claimed they were copies of newspaper articles and magazines.
The superseding indictment alleged that the specific document cited by Trump in the exchange did indeed have a classified marking of “TOP SECRET//NOFORN” and involved a “Presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country.”
The indictment alleged the document was unlawfully in his possession until Jan. 17, 2022, which is the date of Trump’s handover of 15 boxes to the National Archives.
De Oliveira’s alleged false statements
De Oliveira also faces a charge of making false statements and representations during a voluntary interview he gave to the FBI in January where he repeatedly answered “no” when asked if, at the end of Trump’s presidency, he was part of any group involved in helping move and unload boxes at Mar-a-Lago.
The indictment lists numerous occasions where De Oliveira moved boxes of classified documents to the estate.
De Oliveira is scheduled to appear in federal court in Florida on Monday. He hasn’t made a public statement about the indictment as of Friday morning.
Trump and Nauta have previously pleaded not guilty to the charges contained in the original indictment.
In a statement, the Trump campaign claims these charges are aimed to “harass” Trump and his allies. The statement went on to attack President Joe Biden and Special Counsel Jack Smith.
(WASHINGTON) — The White House quickly rejected the idea of a pardon for Hunter Biden, the president’s son, after his plea deal with federal prosecutors fell apart in court.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked during Thursday’s briefing if there was “any possibility” that President Joe Biden would wind up pardoning his younger son.
She immediately responded, “No.”
The exchange came one day after a federal judge in Delaware deferred the agreement struck by Hunter Biden and the Justice Department on tax and gun charges.
The president’s son, in a reversal, then entered a not guilty plea to the tax charges.
Hunter Biden had agreed to plead guilty to failing to pay taxes on income he received 2017 and 2018. In exchange, prosecutors would’ve recommended probation as opposed to prison time. Hunter Biden also would’ve entered a pretrial diversion agreement to avoid prosecution of a separate gun charge.
U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika raised concerns about the parties linking the tax plea agreement to the gun charge deal, as well a provision pertaining to possible immunity for Hunter Biden.
Noreika, who said she felt she was being asked to “rubber-stamp” the deal despite those concerns, gave both sides 30 days to work toward resolving the issues.
Jean-Pierre briefly addressed the deferred deal this week, telling reporters Wednesday that Hunter Biden “is a private citizen and this was a personal matter for him.”
“As we have said, the president, the first lady — they love their son, and they support him as he continues to rebuild his life. This case was handled independently, as all of you know, by the Justice Department under the leadership of a prosecutor appointed by the former president, President [Donald] Trump,” Jean-Pierre said.
President Biden, as a father, has long defended his son despite Hunter Biden’s controversies.
After the plea agreement was struck, the president said he was “proud” of his son. But he has so far declined to answer any questions after what happened in court this week.
Asked on Thursday if President Biden has spoken to his son, Jean-Pierre said she wasn’t going to share any private conversations the president has with his family.
ABC News’ Elizabeth Schulze pressed Jean-Pierre if the president was concerned that his son’s legal challenges would take attention away from the White House.
“I’m just not going to speak to the politics of this, I’m not going to speak to — characterize any of this for the president,” Jean-Pierre responded. “What I can say is that, and I’ve said it before, this is a personal matter.”
(WASHINGTON) — U.S. President Joe Biden will sign a “historic” executive order on Friday that will change how the military handles sexual assault cases, the White House said.
The executive order will amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by transferring key decision-making powers from commanders to specialized, independent military prosecutors in cases of sexual assault, domestic violence, murder, child abuse and other serious offenses. The changes, which implement reforms passed by Congress last year, will mark “the most significant transformation” of the U.S. military justice system since the UCMJ was established in 1950, according to the White House.
“The historic reforms announced today will better protect victims and ensure prosecutorial decisions are fully independent from the chain of the command,” the White House said in a statement. “These reforms are a turning point for survivors of gender-based violence in the military. They fulfill President Biden’s promise to fundamentally shift how the military justice system responds to sexual assault and related crimes, which is something President Biden has prioritized since Day One of this administration.”
Friday’s action will establish rules that will govern the new Offices of Special Trial Counsel, the independent military prosecutors who will now decide, in place of commanders, whether to prosecute such offenses. The executive order will make clear that prosecutorial decisions made by special trial counsel are binding and fully independent from the military’s chain of command, and it will delineate the relationship and authorized interactions between the two to protect the independence of the prosecutors.
In addition, procedures will be modernized to better protect victims and promote fairness before, during and after court-martial proceedings; the court-martial sentencing system will be reformed to promote uniformity and fairness to reduce disparities in sentencing in cases of rape and sexual assault; and a uniform evidence standard for non-judicial punishment actions will be created to ensure consistency across the military services, according to the White House.
The White House said the changes will advance the core accountability recommendations outlined in a 2021 report by the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military, building on progress that has been already made by the U.S. Department of Defense.
“Ending gender-based violence wherever it occurs has been a top priority for the President throughout his career — as a Senator, and as Vice President,” the White House added. “As Commander in Chief, he’s made clear that our one truly sacred obligation as a nation is to prepare and equip those we send into harm’s way, and to care for them and their families both while they are deployed and when they return home. The reforms implemented through today’s Executive Order do just that, promoting dignity and respect for those who serve by better protecting our servicemembers and making the military safer and more just.”
A survey released last year by the U.S. Department of Defense found that the number of sexual assaults on service members reported in 2021 spiked to a new high of 7,249, representing a 13% increase from the previous year. The survey also showed that despite major efforts to address the issue of sexual assault in the military, including reforms instituted in 2021, women in the military services have significantly lost trust in the military to follow through on their cases or treat them with respect.
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump and two others are facing additional charges in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving office.
The charges came in a superseding indictment returned by a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida that adds one defendant and four charges to the prior indictment filed against Trump and aide Walt Nauta.
The new charges include allegations involving the handling of surveillance footage and charges related to Trump’s unauthorized possession of a document that he was previously heard discussing on an audio recording.
Carlos De Oliveira, a current Trump Organization employee who sources tell ABC News is the head of maintenance at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, has been added to the obstruction conspiracy charged in the original indictment.
De Oliveira allegedly told another employee that “the boss” wanted the server containing Mar-a-Lago security footage deleted, and asked how long it kept footage, according to the indictment.
“What are we going to do?” he allegedly said.
The exchange occurred after a subpoena for security footage had been sent to Trump’s attorney, the indictment alleges.
The superseding indictment charges Trump, De Oliveira and Nauta with two new obstruction counts based on allegations that the defendants attempted to delete surveillance video footage at Mar-a-Lago in the summer of 2022.
It also charges De Oliveira with false statements and representations in a voluntary interview with the FBI on Jan. 13, 2023.
De Oliveira has been summoned to appear on July 31, 2023, at the federal courthouse in Miami.
The new indictment also charges Trump with allegedly possessing the classified document that he was previously heard discussing on an audio recording made during a July 21, 2021, meeting at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club.
The discussion was previously detailed in Smith’s first indictment of Trump, where the former president is heard appearing to acknowledge he held onto a sensitive military document after leaving office — but could no longer declassify it because he was no longer president.
“Wait a minute, let’s see here. I just found, isn’t that amazing?” Trump says in the recording, which was later obtained by ABC News. “This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. This was done by the military and given to me. As president I could have declassified, but now I can’t.”
Trump gave an interview to Fox News after his indictment where he denied that the material in his possession at Bedminster was a classified document.
“It wasn’t a document, OK? I had lots of paper — I had copies of newspaper articles, I had copies of magazines,” Trump said during the Fox News interview. “There was no document. That was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or may not, but that was not a document.”
But the new superseding indictment against Trump alleges that the specific document cited by Trump in the exchange did indeed have a classified marking of “TOP SECRET//NOFORN” and involved a “Presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country.” The indictment alleges the document was unlawfully in his possession until Jan. 17, 2022, which is the date that Trump handed over of 15 boxes of materials to the National Archives.
It is not immediately clear why Smith didn’t choose to include the charge in his June 8 indictment of Trump, though Smith had said at a news conference that the investigation into Trump’s handling of classified materials remained ongoing.
In response to Thursday’s superseding indictment, the Trump campaign issued a statement claiming the charges are aimed to “harass” Trump and his allies. The statement went on to attack Smith and President Joe Biden.
Trump pleaded not guilty in June to 37 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information ranging from U.S. nuclear secrets to the nation’s defense capabilities.
Nauta, Trump’s longtime aide who was charged alongside him in the special counsel’s case, pleaded not guilty to six counts including conspiracy to obstruct justice and making false statements.
Trump has denied all charges and denounced the probe as a political witch hunt.
Al Diaz/Miami Herald/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Lawyers for former President Donald Trump met Thursday morning with special counsel Jack Smith’s team as a potential indictment of the former president looms, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
Trump attorneys John Lauro and Todd Blanche met with Smith’s team following the receipt of a target letter alerting Trump he is a target of the special counsel’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump’s lawyers were there to make the case for why they believed Trump shouldn’t be indicted. Special counsel Jack Smith was present for the meeting, sources said.
The meeting ended after an hour, sources told ABC News.
The target letter, sent on July 16, mentions three federal statutes: conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States, deprivation of rights under a civil rights statute, and tampering with a witness, victim or an informant, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
Trump confirmed the letter in a post on his Truth Social platform.
Smith was appointed in November by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee the investigation into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving the presidency.
Trump has denied all wrongdoing and has dismissed the probes as a political witch hunt.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden has a yawning early lead in FiveThirtyEight’s new Democratic presidential primary polling average as he ramps up his reelection campaign.
As of Thursday, the new average shows Biden with 65.5% support nationally and controversial environmental advocate and attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. trailing at a distant 14.2%, despite extensive media attention and more than $6 million in donations so far.
Marianne Williamson, a bestselling author and speaker whose campaign is being run by a revolving door of strategists on a shoestring budget, according to financial filings, is not included in the average as she does not meet FiveThirtyEight’s criteria to be a major candidate.
Some of the polls included in the new average show Williamson drawing support in the low single digits.
The average underscores the challenges for Kennedy with Democratic voters even as he boasts membership in one of America’s most famous political dynasties. His bid for the White House has also cast a new spotlight on his history of spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation on public health issues.
Kennedy, whose campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story, has defended his odds.
“I’m up against a very, very formidable force — the Democratic Party,” he said earlier this week. “But I also think that I have a lot of paths to victory.”
Williamson, whose campaign also didn’t respond to a request, has likewise contended her chances aren’t so easily dismissed.
“American politics is very, very unpredictable,” she previously told ABC News, casting her lack of political expertise as an asset.
“The problem is not that we don’t have good political car mechanics in Washington,” she said then. “The problem is that we are on the wrong road. And that’s what I know about.”
Biden wields significant advantages of his own, including the trappings of the White House, the full-throated support of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the lack of a primary rival who falls within the Democratic mainstream, with a source familiar with Biden’s campaign telling ABC News there is “zero doubt” from campaign officials or the DNC that Biden will be the nominee of the Democratic Party.
“President Biden and Vice President [Kamala] Harris are running on the best legislative record in modern history delivering for the American people, and they are heartened by the unprecedented unity across the Democratic Party in support of their campaign,” boasted TJ Ducklo, a senior adviser for communications on the Biden campaign.
“In 2020, they assembled a broad and diverse coalition that resulted in the most votes in American history for a presidential ticket. And, coming off of the best midterm for a sitting president since FDR, they will do it again in 2024 and prevail over the MAGA extremist agenda that seeks to rip away basic freedoms from Americans across every state,” Ducklo said.
Biden’s main advantage is that of incumbency, which helps him work directly with the DNC and largely clear the field of mainstream primary opponents.
In a sign of the party support behind him, the DNC is not anticipated to hold any primary debates — irking some activists but sparking few complaints from party members.
That type of tight-knit cooperation is not unique to Biden or even to Democrats: The Republican National Committee held no primary debates in 2020, and many states canceled their nominating contests to smooth the path for then-President Donald Trump.
On top of that, allies note, Biden has the ability to use Air Force One to bounce around the campaign trail and he can roll out policies — including the bipartisan infrastructure bill and funding for microchip manufacturing — from the White House.
“Biden and Harris are running on a strong record and core values that are not only strong, but also given the contrast, it’s not surprising to see such a sizable lead,” said Karen Finney, a former DNC official and Democratic strategist close to the White House.
At the same time, Biden is somewhat constrained by his status as the leader of the Democratic Party in a way that Kennedy and Williamson aren’t, observers say.
The latter two are more free to campaign in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary amid a shake-up over the Democrats’ larger primary calendar, as party officials seek to prioritize other states like South Carolina. That could mean either Kennedy or Williamson may technically win in Iowa or New Hampshire over Biden, if Biden avoids campaigning there out of deference to the DNC — a potentially stinging but only symbolic loss.
The White House and Biden’s campaign have so far steered clear of taking the two on directly, opting instead to focus on governing and preparing for the general election.
“I think the way the White House is handling it is correct. He [Kennedy] is so far out there that no Democratic voters are listening to him, and he is just basically doing MAGA podcasts,” said Democratic strategist Eddie Vale, referencing Kennedy’s penchant for appearing on conservative-leaning platforms along with mainstream media appearances.
When it comes to debates, Vale said he’d only be supportive of having them if the primary was “a close call, or debatable if a primary is competitive or not.”
“But no one is served by having a debate” with Kennedy or Williamson, he said.
Al Diaz/Miami Herald/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Lawyers for former President Donald Trump have arrived at special counsel Jack Smith’s offices Thursday morning for a meeting as a potential indictment of the former president looms, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
Trump’s attorneys, John Lauro and Todd Blanche, are expected to meet with Smith’s team following receipt of a target letter alerting Trump he was a target of the special counsel’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Smith was appointed in November by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee the investigation into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving the presidency.
(WASHINGTON) — New details about Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s health are emerging after an unusual episode on Capitol Hill on Wednesday in which he froze up during a press conference and had to briefly return to his office.
While the 81-year-old Kentucky lawmaker has repeatedly said since then that he’s “fine,” he did suffer a fall two weeks ago in Washington, D.C., and uses a wheelchair periodically to get around, sources told ABC News.
McConnell fell on the jet bridge at Reagan National Airport on July 14, according to the sources.
The flight was canceled for reasons unrelated to his fall. McConnell returned to the Capitol afterward. Sources said he was fine and sustained no major injuries.
His office declined to comment on the incident and declined on Wednesday to answer other questions about his health.
McConnell previously fell in March, where he suffered a concussion and fractured rib. Since then, the Republican leader has periodically been using a wheelchair to get around, sources said.
NBC News was the first to report McConnell’s fall at the airport and his wheelchair use.
When asked to comment about the use of a wheelchair, McConnell’s office told ABC News that it is “simply a prudent and precautionary measure in a crowded area.”
McConnell hasn’t been seen by the press using a wheelchair on Capitol Hill, where his office is just steps away from the Senate chamber and the location where he holds his weekly press conferences.
He survived polio as a child and has long acknowledged difficulty walking and climbing stairs.
McConnell sparked concern Wednesday when he froze at his weekly press conference, going silent mid-sentence and staring off for about 20 seconds before stepping away. Colleagues around him could be heard asking if he was OK.
He was escorted back to his office and returned to the podium minutes later, where he answered some questions from reporters. He told the press he was “fine” after the incident. An aide said the senator was feeling lightheaded.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said he spoke with McConnell after the episode as part of a regularly scheduled meeting.
“There was no concerns about his health in that meeting,” McCarthy said. “That wasn’t that much long after, no — it was a normal meeting that we’ve always had.”
McCarthy said McConnell “was good.”
When leaving the Capitol later Wednesday, McConnell told reporters that President Joe Biden had called him to check in. He said he told the president he “got sandbagged,” a reference to Biden’s fall in June during the U.S. Air Force Academy graduation ceremony.
“Got to watch those sandbags,” McConnell said as reporters asked if he knew what happened or if he’d seen a doctor.
(WASHINGTON) — As a dangerous heat wave continues to plague tens of millions of Americans across the country, one Texas lawmaker is pushing for heat protections, including water breaks, for those who work outside in the brutal conditions.
Rep. Greg Casar, a Democrat, organized a so-called “thirst strike” on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, where he says he didn’t drink water or take a break all day in order to call attention to the issue.
Last month, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law that overrides city and county ordinances, which critics say will also strip local protections in place for outdoor workers, such as mandated water breaks.
The law goes into effect on Sept. 1 and would put an end to safeguards such as the ordinance the City of Austin passed in 2010 that requires rest and water breaks on construction sites for at least 10 minutes every four hours. The City of Dallas passed a similar ordinance in 2015.
Casar spoke to “GMA3” on Wednesday about why he’s urging the federal government to take action.
DEMARCO MORGAN: So we talk about the heat and this extreme heat that’s pretty much taken over the summer. But you can’t help but think about the workers who have to be in these conditions and in these elements here. How dire is this situation?
CASAR: Everyone deserves a water break. Working should not be a death sentence. But, unfortunately, in places like Texas, where I’ve grown up, it is way hotter than normal, and we’ve had people lose their lives delivering the mail, pouring concrete, fixing electrical lines. And we need to protect those workers.
But tragically, this month, the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, chose to sign a law that rips workers’ right to taking a water break away from them. We’ve had local protections in Texas guaranteeing people rest breaks from the heat, and the governor took that away.
And so that’s why I did a thirst strike all day yesterday, standing on the Capitol steps, not drinking water, not taking a break, demanding and urging that we fix that problem by passing a law protecting workers from the heat or having the president use his authority to guarantee a federal heat protection mandate for all Americans right now.
EVA PILGRIM: Let’s talk about that thirst strike that you were just mentioning. What was the goal there? What kind of attention were you hoping to get?
CASAR: Before I was an elected official, I was a labor organizer, and we would organize workers to participate in these thirst strikes across Texas, standing in front of city halls, not drinking water, not eating food, standing in the sun. And those thirst strikes helped us successfully pass water break protections in multiple cities across Texas, and now those protections are being taken away in a historic heat wave.
And that’s why we launched another thirst strike now in Washington, D.C., because the president has the authority to finally put in a federal rule guaranteeing everybody the right to shade, the right to come off of a scaffold if you’re starting to feel sick in the sun.
We know that there are big corporate interests that have been pushing back against any kinds of these rules getting passed. That’s why there is no federal protection for water and protection for workers in the heat right now.
But we can change that by raising our voices. And I think the voices of most Americans can overcome the corporate lobbying that has held back workers’ rights for so long.
MORGAN: So congressman, why are we so behind in federal laws when it comes to protecting workers?
CASAR: We had yesterday, on the Capitol steps, farm workers who talked about cutting onions in the sun and fields where there is no shade and where they weren’t being provided water.
Construction workers and warehouse workers who were pushed to work faster to finish a project and having their breaks cut. Flight attendants who had been put on a plane over 110 degrees that they didn’t want to pull the flight attendants off of, because they wanted to take off, even though the AC wasn’t working.
Ultimately, that’s when profits are getting put before people, and it’s our role as the government not just to take care of companies’ bottom lines, but to take care of the people that make our economy work.
So I think we have to reorient our priorities as a Congress and start focusing on the working people that make the economy work, not just on big businesses’ bottom line.
PILGRIM: Do you think fixing this is as simple as just federally mandating water breaks? How would you enforce something like that?
CASAR: In the city of Austin – I represent the city of Austin and the city of San Antonio in Texas – we passed a water break ordinance and that required education. We had posters at every construction site telling people they had the right to water. There was the ability to enforce this by people calling in complaints. But what we saw from a peer-reviewed study was that construction workers in Austin were 30% more likely to say they were starting to get water breaks after that law passed than before, because laws set norms.
But we also should do the right thing by one another. But I think that it’s really important for us to have a federal heat standard so that workers know they have the basic right. They can raise their hand and say, I have the right to come off this scaffold. I have a right to take a break from the warehouse and get a drink of water. And they don’t have that right, right now.
In some Texas cities, they currently do, but that’s being stripped away by the governor. And to me, that’s not acceptable. Let’s take this opportunity – if he’s trying to take this right away in a historic heat wave – for the president to step in and do the right thing or the Congress to step in.
We had over 110 members of the United States Congress and U.S. senators sign a letter alongside me that I wrote this Monday saying they want to see this heat standard put in place. So it’ll only take a small number of Republicans to sign onto a bill and we can get this fixed.
MORGAN: So with extreme weather conditions seemingly getting worse, how do we protect workers in the future?
CASAR: I grew up in Texas, and we know it is hot, but it has not been this hot before. We had the two hottest weeks in San Antonio’s recorded history the other day – temperatures crossing 110 degrees in the Rio Grande Valley, and it’s only going to get worse.
So we need more workers’ rights as we face this climate crisis, not fewer worker rights. We need to guarantee people a living wage, guarantee people a union and a voice at work.
On top of these water break protections, we, I believe, as a Democratic Party, but frankly as a government, need to start focusing more on how the climate crisis is going to hurt workers.
Because there’s going to be worse winters like the power grid failure we had in Texas and worse summers. We’ve got to address worsening weather in our community, and we’ve got to protect people on the job as things get worse.
