(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans are slated to vote Tuesday on their spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, that would fund the government at current levels through Sept. 30, 2025.
In the absence of Democratic support, the vote represents a major test for Speaker Mike Johnson — as it remains unclear if the Trump-backed legislation can even pass in the GOP-controlled House.
Johnson needs near-unanimous GOP support and can only afford to lose one Republican before a second defection would defeat the bill if all members are voting and present. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie said he will vote against the measure and Georgia Rep. Rich McCormick told reporters he’s also leaning against voting for the bill. Several others are undecided, including Reps. Tony Gonzales, Andy Ogles, Tim Burchett, Cory Mills, Eli Crane and Brian Fitzpatrick.
House Republicans are slated to vote Tuesday on their spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, that would fund the government at current levels through Sept. 30, 2025.
In the absence of Democratic support, the vote represents a major test for Speaker Mike Johnson — as it remains unclear if the Trump-backed legislation can even pass in the GOP-controlled House.
Johnson needs near-unanimous GOP support and can only afford to lose one Republican before a second defection would defeat the bill if all members are voting and present. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie said he will vote against the measure and Georgia Rep. Rich McCormick told reporters he’s also leaning against voting for the bill. Several others are undecided, including Reps. Tony Gonzales, Andy Ogles, Tim Burchett, Cory Mills, Eli Crane and Brian Fitzpatrick.
“The House and Senate have put together, under the circumstances, a very good funding Bill (“CR”)! All Republicans should vote (Please!) YES next week. Great things are coming for America, and I am asking you all to give us a few months to get us through to September so we can continue to put the Country’s “financial house” in order,” Trump said on Saturday in a post on Truth Social.
Trump added, “Democrats will do anything they can to shut down our Government.”
On Monday evening, Trump threatened to lead the charge against Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie in the primaries, following the congressman saying he would vote no on the continuing resolution Tuesday.
“Congressman Thomas Massie, of beautiful Kentucky, is an automatic “NO” vote on just about everything, despite the fact that he has always voted for Continuing Resolutions in the past,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. “HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him. He’s just another GRANDSTANDER, who’s too much trouble, and not worth the fight.”
Across the aisle, Democratic leaders are urging their caucus to vote against the measure.
“It is not something we could ever support. House Democrats will not be complicit in the Republican effort to hurt the American people,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters on Monday.
The 99-page bill would decrease spending overall from last year’s funding levels but increase spending for the military by about $6 billion.
While there is an additional $6 billion for veterans’ healthcare, non-defense spending is about $13 billion lower than fiscal year 2024 levels.
The legislation leaves out emergency funding for disasters but provides a boost in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation operations.
It also increases funding for W.I.C. by about $500 million, a program that provides free groceries to low-income women and children.
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report
(WASHINGTON) — Before a judge halted the takeover in February, President Donald Trump’s administration was planning to fire the overwhelming majority of employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and then fulfill the agency’s legal obligations with a skeleton crew, a top CFPB official testified on Monday.
During a lengthy court hearing on Monday, CFPB’s Chief Operating Officer Adam Martinez gave a full sworn account of the chaos and confusion that has consumed the federal agency that was set up to protect the public from unfair corporate practices ever since the Department of Government Efficiency and Trump administration officials moved to dismantle it.
His testimony provided a window into what is happening internally as DOGE spearheads Trump’s mandate to slash the federal government.
“Absent the temporary restraining order, the majority of the CFPB employees would have been terminated?” a lawyer representing the plaintiffs asked Martinez.
“The majority, yes,” Martinez said, adding the remaining employees would have been fired in later phases of the takeover.
Throughout his six-hour testimony, Martinez described the back-and-forth that played out in recent weeks among acting CFPB Director Russ Vought, DOGE, the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget. Officials toggled between halting and partially reinstating the agency’s work as they hastily slashed it and then scrambled to put pieces back in place to comply with law – in some cases losing key data and services along the way.
“I was having a hard time processing what was happening,” Martinez said, describing the early days of DOGE’s takeover of CFPB.
“So is it fair to say that there’s thought going into it, but only after? It’s like, shoot first and ask questions later?” Judge Amy Berman Jackson asked, after Martinez described how the agency was forced to cancel numerous critical contracts but rescinded some of those terminations soon after. Martinez agreed.
The hearing also shed light on the unique relationship between DOGE representatives and career civil servants, with Martinez frequently calling DOGE representatives the newly installed leaders of the CFPB.
“I don’t understand, why are you using them with leadership to refer to DOGE unless you had been told that DOGE was now your leadership,” asked Judge Jackson.
“They were designated as senior advisers, ma’am,” Martinez said.
“Senior leaders of the CFPB,” Judge Jackson asked.
“Correct,” Martinez said.
Martinez recalled everything from DOGE representatives’ first arrival at CFPB’s office in the first week of February — and the acting director’s email ordering CFPB employees to stop working — to the immediate chaos that ensued, as well as efforts by him and other career officials at CFPB to figure out what has been terminated and how to reinstate critical functions of the agency.
“There were a couple of high-priority issues that would have been devastating had it stopped,” Martinez said at one point.
“I was very, very concerned about the Consumer Response Center going down,” Martinez said, explaining potential backlash that could occur if those systems halted. He said he eventually coordinated a discussion between the head of that unit and DOGE’s representatives to “help them understand why his program was so important.”
On March 2, after much confusion and frustration as to what type of work CFPB was authorized to perform, OMB’s General Counsel Mark Paoletta, who has been representing Vought, eventually sent a letter directing CFPB employees to perform statutorily required duties.
But even after some units were told to return to work, they continued experiencing challenges — including loss of personnel and access to files of those who have left, according to accounts showcased during the hearing.
Jackson acknowledged the extraordinary situation workers at CFPB are facing, and she asked a series of questions to the witness.
“Would you say that sending out an order that says ‘Do no work’ is typical?” Judge Jackson asked.
“No,” Martinez responded.
“Would you say that canceling all the contracts before the analysis as to whether these are duplicative, worthwhile, not worthwhile, is typical?” the judge also asked.
“No,” Martinez again responded.
“Would you say that firing all probationary employees and two-year employees from the get-go is typical?” the judge asked.
“No,” Martinez responded.
“Would you say that trying to implement a brief without notice before the new director is even put in place, is typical?” the judge continued.
“No,” Martinez again replied.
“And would you say putting the rest of the employees on administrative leave with an order to do no work is typical?” the judge asked.
“No,” Martinez responded.
Jackson is considering issuing a preliminary injunction to effectively halt the breakdown of the CFPB, which she temporarily stopped last week. During Monday’s hearing, Martinez was grilled about emails that he had produced wherein he discussed carrying out the mass terminations despite the court’s order.
“You said that, in some ways, the delay was a blessing, because it gave you more time to figure out how to accomplish this wide-scale termination, right?” a lawyer asked.
“Yes,” Martinez said.
“And so you conveyed things like, there really isn’t going to be a CFPB now, right?” the lawyer continued.
“When you’re ripping out a number of people and functions, yes,” Martinez said.
(WASHINGTON) — Elon Musk, the billionaire businessman and head of the Department of Government Efficiency, called Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly a “traitor” in a post on X after Kelly posted that he had visited Ukraine over the weekend.
Kelly, in a thread on X Sunday night, posted photos of his visit to Ukraine and wrote that “Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect Ukraine’s security and can’t be a giveaway to Putin.”
In a reply to the thread, Musk responded, “You are a traitor.”
Kelly, a former Navy pilot and astronaut, responded in a separate post on X.
“Traitor? Elon, if you don’t understand that defending freedom is a basic tenet of what makes America great and keeps us safe, maybe you should leave it to those of us who do,” wrote Kelly, whose recent trip marked his third visit to Ukraine since 2023.
The comments from Musk, one of President Donald Trump’s closest advisers, comes weeks after an explosive meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office that devolved into a shouting match. During the stunning exchange, Trump and Vice President JD Vance rebuked Zelenskyy for his handling of the war, falsely blaming the Ukrainian leader for a conflict that began when Russia’s Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion.
After the meeting, Zelenskyy left without signing an agreement that would have given the U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral resources, which the country had hoped would ensure the continued flow of U.S. military support as it battles Russia.
Trump’s administration has embarked on a dramatic pivot away from the “ironclad” backing of Ukraine practiced by former President Joe Biden’s administration. Trump has falsely blamed Ukraine for starting the war with Russia, called Zelenskyy a “dictator” and frozen military aid and intelligence support in a bid to force Ukraine into making concessions to Russia.
“If we abandon our ally Ukraine, we will be viewed by other countries including our other allies as untrustworthy and in the future we shouldn’t expect their help,” Kelly posted to X.
Kelly and Musk have feuded in the past. When Musk attacked Danish astronaut Andreas Mogensen last month, calling him “an idiot,” Kelly and his brother Scott Kelly, also an astronaut, pushed back.
“Hey @ElonMusk, when you finally get the nerve to climb into a rocket ship, come talk to the three of us,” Kelly wrote.
(WASHINGTON) — Democrats want to force President Donald Trump’s administration to rehire veterans who were laid off as part of large-scale efforts by Trump and Elon Musk to reshape the federal government and its workforce, according to information exclusive to ABC News.
Sens. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Andy Kim of New Jersey plan to introduce the Protect Veteran Jobs Act in the Senate on Monday. The bill would compel the Trump administration to reinstate veterans impacted by recent mass layoffs, according to a copy of the proposal obtained by ABC News.
It would also require the Trump administration to provide a quarterly report to Congress on the number of veterans removed from the federal workforce — and the justification for their firing.
“Veterans who choose to continue their service to our country in the federal workforce deserve our utmost gratitude, but instead this Administration has kicked thousands of our heroes to the curb and left them without a paycheck,” Duckworth said in a statement. “The message of our bill is simple: Give our heroes their jobs back. If Republicans really care about our Veterans, they should stop enabling Trump and Musk’s chaos and support our legislation.”
In the coming weeks of floor activity and ahead of government funding votes, Democrats hope to get Republicans on the record over layoffs impacting a reliably Republican — and Trump-supporting — group of voters.
The party also attempted to draw attention to the firings by inviting veterans who lost their government jobs to Trump’s joint address to Congress on March 3.
Veterans make up roughly 30% of the federal workforce of more than 2 million civilian government employees, according to September data from the Office of Personnel Management.
Roughly 75,000 federal workers have accepted offers for deferred buyouts, and another roughly 20,000 government employees have been fired in the first months of Trump’s second term.
The Trump administration has not said how many veterans have been impacted by the cuts, though Democrats have estimated that several thousand veterans have been fired across the administration.
OPM has since directed some agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to rehire veteran workers and to exempt veterans and military spouses from other workforce policy changes.
But many veterans have still lost their jobs in recent weeks.
“You spend 10 years trying to defend your country in terms of honesty, integrity and justice, and then you come back and get copy-and-pasted the same email as 10,000 other people about your performance,” Andrew Lennox, a fired Department of Veterans Affairs worker who served as a Marine in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, told ABC News.
Lennox was one of the veterans who attended Trump’s joint address to Congress last week. He was a guest of Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who delivered the Democratic rebuttal to the speech.
The Department of Veterans Affairs also plans to cut up to 80,000 workers from the agency, which has drawn some criticism from both Republicans and Democrats.
Democratic Rep. Derek Tran of California has introduced similar legislation in the House.
Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said on Sunday that he took issue with the Democratic response in the chamber to President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging address to Congress last week.
“I think the lack of a coordinated response in the State of the Union was a mistake, and frankly, it took the focus off of where it should have been, which is on the fact that the president spoke for an hour and 40 minutes and had nothing to say about what he would do to bring down costs for American families that were watching that lengthy address sitting at the kitchen table, hoping that he would offer something to help them afford a new home or pay the rent to afford health care or child care,” Schiff said on “This Week.”
Democratic lawmakers participated in various protests during Trump’s speech. Some female members of Congress wore hot pink to show resistance. Other Democratic members held signs that called out Elon Musk. Some decided to boycott the speech or leave early.
Schiff refuted Democratic strategist James Carville’s recent proposal in a New York Times op-ed that Democrats should “roll over and play dead” and wait for Republicans “to crumble beneath their own weight,” with the California senator instead saying that the right approach is focusing on “the economic well-being of Americans.”
“We need to have our own broad, bold agenda … to answer really the central question which is, if you’re working hard in America, can you still earn a good living?” said Schiff. “We need to be advancing policies and making the arguments about what we have to offer, not simply standing back and letting them collapse of our own corrupt weight. We need to effectively use litigation as we are. We need to effectively use communication to talk to new people in new ways as we are.”
Schiff also expressed frustration and disapproval of Trump’s whiplash tariff agenda.
Trump on Tuesday imposed a 25% tariff on goods coming from Canada or Mexico. The following day, he issued a one-month delay for auto parts. By Friday, Trump signed an executive order that extended the delay to all products under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, which is a free trade agreement signed during Trump’s first term. Roughly half of Mexican imports fall under USMCA and about 38% of imports from Canada fall under the agreement.
Schiff said that Democrats have to start responding to Trump’s tariffs and economic policies more effectively.
“This is deeply destructive, what they’re doing,” he said. “We need to make that case to the American people, because they’re going to feel it. But, you know, taking our eye off the ball, I think, is very dangerous, and so let’s be focused on what matters most to Americans. Let’s point out all the destructive harms they’re doing with you know, the cutting of services, the slashing of Medicaid, and what that’s going to mean for increased health costs and less access for people.”
(WASHINGTON) — David Sacks, the White House crypto czar, said Friday that taxpayers have lost out on “over $17 billion of value” because earlier administrations never took advantage of bitcoin already in the U.S. government’s possession.
“Over the past decade or so, the federal government has come into the possession of roughly 400,000 bitcoin through civil or criminal asset forfeitures,” Sacks said in an interview with ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang on Friday. “We’ve had this very ad hoc strategy where we just would sell the bitcoin, sort of almost willy-nilly, and we sold about half of it. We only made about $400 million. Today, that bitcoin would have been worth over $17 billion, so the American taxpayer lost out on over $17 billion of value.”
Sacks’ comments follow President Donald Trump signing an executive order on Thursday that creates a strategic bitcoin reserve and U.S. digital assets stockpile. Senior White House officials said bitcoin is being treated differently from other cryptocurrencies because it is the “original” cryptocurrency and there is a finite amount.
Sacks brushed off repeated questions about whether this could pose a conflict of interest since President Donald Trump has a personal financial stake in the success of the industry after launching his own cryptocurrency company, World Liberty Financial, days before the inauguration.
“It’s not an issue,” Sacks told Wang.
When asked about Bloomberg News’ reporting that World Liberty Financial appears to have bought more than $20 million in cryptocurrency two days before the White House’s Digital Assets Summit on Friday, Sacks said: “You should talk to them about that. That’s a private company. I’m not a regulator. I’m a policy adviser for innovation. I don’t keep tabs on what individual companies are doing.”
Sacks stressed that the government is not buying any cryptocurrency, just using the cryptocurrency that has already been accumulated through criminal or civil asset forfeitures.
“Any further accumulation of bitcoin by the government has to be done in a completely budget-neutral way. It cannot add to the deficit, it cannot add to the debt, it cannot tax the American people,” Sacks said. “So this is about maximizing the value of assets that we already have on our balance sheet.”
When asked by ABC News how the government could “accumulate” more bitcoin in a budget-neutral way, Sacks said those programs don’t exist, noting the administration is still in the planning phase and that the executive order calls on the secretaries of the Department of Commerce and the Department of Treasury to “think about that.”
“It won’t cost the taxpayer dimes, but if the secretaries can figure out how to accumulate more bitcoin without costing taxpayers anything, then they are authorized to do that,” the senior White House officials added.
Sacks repeatedly compared bitcoin to U.S. holdings of gold, explaining that the U.S. won’t be selling it, unless Trump changes his mind down the road.
“We’ve got about a trillion dollars of gold in Fort Knox and our other depositories,” he said. “We don’t sell that gold, even though we could use it to pay off a trillion dollars of national debt. The reason why we don’t sell it, liquidate it all today is because we believe it’s strategic for the United States to have a stockpile or reserve of that asset.
“In a similar way, we believe it’s in the long term interest the United States to hold on to this bitcoin,” he added. “Look, if the president changes his mind at some point in the future, he could issue a new executive order and say, the secretary of the treasury, get rid of it, sell it. But we don’t want to do that.”
White House officials also noted that an official audit of the government’s digital asset holdings has never been completed but will be following the president’s executive order, allowing the administration to get a more concrete understanding of what the U.S. possesses.
(NEW YORK) — In this first episode of a new podcast published Thursday, California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, an LGBTQ ally, broke with his party, saying that transgender athletes playing in female sports is “deeply unfair.”
“I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness. It’s deeply unfair,” Newsom said on his podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom.”
Newsom’s comments came during a conversation with conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who leads conservative group Turning Point USA and played a critical role in garnering youth support for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
Newsom, sometimes viewed as a 2028 presidential hopeful, also agreed that the political ad that hurt former Vice President Kamala Harris the most in her presidential campaign was her previous support for providing taxpayer-funded gender transition-related medical care for detained immigrants and federal prisoners. Trump’s campaign had played back her remarks in a widely-circulated ad.
“She didn’t even react to it, which was even more devastating,” Newsom said.
Newsom also pointed to his own work in expanding LGBTQ rights, while referencing current law in the state of California that allows transgender athletes to participate in school sports that reflect the gender they identify with.
Newsom himself was a trailblazer in expanding LGBTQ rights: in 2004, as mayor of San Francisco, he allowed same-sex marriages to proceed even though they were not yet allowed nationwide.
He referenced that moment while discussing his alignment with Kirk’s views on transgender athletes in women’s sports.
“I’ve been a leader in the LGBTQ places, as, you know, back in 2004 [I] was marrying same sex couples. And I know we have [a] difference [of] opinion on marriage equality, and so I’ve been at this for years and years, I take a backseat to no one,” Newsom said, before discussing how he heard people talking about transgender athletes.
On the podcast, Newsom also called for compassion toward transgender individuals, even while discussing the sports issue: “There’s also humility and grace. You know, that, these poor people are more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety and depression, and the way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with as well.”
LGBTQ rights groups criticized Newsom’s remarks, saying that they came amid national backlash to transgender individuals and their rights.
The Human Rights Campaign, a major national LGBTQ rights advocacy and lobbying group, said in a statement shared on social media that with discussions nationwide in legislatures about restricting same-sex marriage or transgender rights, “this is not a moment to sit politely in the face of authoritarian bullies or throw people under the bus for political posturing.”
“Singling out trans kids to score political points is never going to help someone pay their rent, keep Medicaid or get a job, but it will make it seem like Gov. Newsom believes our civil rights are up for grabs,” the organization wrote. “Californians – and ALL Americans – need leaders who have courage in their convictions, and who will show up for them, in the faces of people who want to see us all back in the closet.”
The organization also pointed to a 2013 law in California that allowed students to be part of sport teams matching their own gender identity. The American Civil Liberties Union praised the law in 2013 as “ensuring transgender youth have the opportunity to fully participate and succeed in schools across the state.”
Newsom briefly referenced the law in his discussion with Kirk, highlighting that it was passed before he became governor.
Two members of the California state legislature, Assemblymember Chris Ward and state Sen. Caroline Menjivar, released a statement through the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus criticizing Newsom’s remarks as well, saying they were “profoundly sickened and frustrated” by what he said.
“Sometimes Gavin Newsom goes for the Profile in Courage, sometimes not,” they wrote. “We woke up profoundly sickened and frustrated by these remarks. All students deserve the academic and health benefits of sports activity, and until Donald Trump began obsessing about it, playing on a team consistent with one’s gender has not been a problem since the standard was passed in 2013.”
Newsom’s remarks came just a month after Trump signed an executive order intending on banning transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports. The White House has said the action is meant to protect women in sports from harm and from facing opponents who they say have an unfair advantage.
LGBTQ advocacy groups have criticized the administration’s action and general rhetoric as discriminatory and as having razor-sharp focus on issues of transgender rights to the exclusion of economic and other issues.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said he sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei about negotiating a nuclear deal, while also threatening military action if an agreement isn’t reached.
Trump said he sent the letter on Wednesday during an interview with Fox Business, a clip of which was released by the network on Friday.
“There are two ways Iran can be handled, militarily or you make a deal. I would prefer to make a deal,” Trump told Fox host Maria Bartiromo.
“I would rather negotiate a deal. I’m not sure that everybody agrees with me, but we can make a deal that would be just as good as if you won militarily,” Trump said. “But the time is happening now, the time is coming up. Something is going to happen one way or the other. I hope that Iran, and I’ve written them a letter, saying I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily it’s going to be a terrible thing for them.”
Bartiromo asked the president if he gave Iranian leadership an ultimatum.
“No I didn’t say, ‘You better.’ I said, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate,’ because it will be a lot better for Iran. I think they want to get that letter. The other alternative is we have to do something because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump warned.
This isn’t the first time Trump has sent a message to Khamenei. In 2019, with the help of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he sent a similar message, but the Iranian leader publicly rejected that offer to talk.
Khamenei reportedly said at the time, “I do not consider Trump as a person worth exchanging any message with.”
Trump’s comments proposing a nuclear deal come after he withdrew the U.S. from an agreement reached between Iran and the Obama administration during his first term in office. That nuclear deal, established in 2015, allowed Iran to enrich uranium only up to 3.67% purity and maintain a stockpile of uranium of 300 kilograms.
Last month, Trump signed a memorandum that seeks to exert “maximum pressure” on Iran, including pushing its oil exports down to zero in order to stop Tehran from possessing nuclear weapons capability.
“I’m going to sign it, but hopefully we’re not going to have to use it very much. We will see whether or not we can arrange or work out a deal with Iran,” he said.
Asked about what kind of deal he’d like to see, Trump responded: “We’re going to see. They cannot have a nuclear weapon. With me, it’s very simple: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
As he spoke on the issue in the Oval Office, Trump also said he’s left instructions to “obliterate” Iran if they ever carried out an assassination.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Friday said he would turn up the heat on Russia until it reaches a ceasefire and peace deal with Ukraine.
Trump threatened Russia with sanctions and tariffs in a Truth Social post.
“Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED. To Russia and Ukraine, get to the table right now, before it is too late. Thank you,” he posted without further details.
The Biden administration previously issued sanctions on Russia after it invaded Ukraine three years ago.
Trump has come under criticism for not being tough on Putin during his negotiations with Russia and Ukraine to end the conflict. He has falsely and repeatedly claimed that Ukraine started the war.
The president’s post came hours after Russia launched a major attack on Ukraine in which it deployed 261 missiles and drones that targeted energy and gas infrastructure in various regions, according to Ukrainian officials.
The Trump administration also paused military aid and intelligence data with Ukraine this week, following last week’s explosive argument between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(LAS VEGAS) — To Cherie DeVille, one of the adult entertainment industry’s most popular stars, pornography — and its easy accessibility online — is a fundamental freedom protected by the First Amendment.
“This isn’t a whim or something that I’m going to do for a week. I love this job,” said the former physical therapist turned sex worker who has millions of followers on social media. “It’s very good business for me.”
To parents with young children, like Dawn Hawkins of Virginia, America’s multibillion-dollar porn juggernaut is a social poison infiltrating families via the internet.
“How are we going to teach our children healthy intimacy and boundaries and consent when what they’re viewing across multiple platforms is sharing really the opposite message,” said Hawkins, who wants stricter controls for sexually-explicit content.
The age-old debate over the widespread availability of pornography in America will enter a new phase this spring as the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether states can legally require websites hosting adult content to perform electronic age verification of all users.
A green light for online age checks could dramatically alter how millions of U.S. adults access sexually explicit content on their phones, tablets, and computers and potentially build a more stringent safety barrier for children than what currently exists.
The decision will come at a time when hardcore porn is booming business and easier to obtain than ever before, with the rapid proliferation of adult film studios, live camera websites, social media platforms, and online networks of amateur creators. Many sites have no paywall or age verification gateways.
“It’s not a matter of if my kids are going to be exposed to pornography. It’s a matter of when. It’s definitely going to happen,” said Hawkins, a mother of 5 who also heads the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which has led an effort to crack down on the porn industry.
Hawkins and many national parent organizations have voiced growing concern in recent years that software filters and parental controls on personal electronics – installed by manufacturers and long considered the primary line of defense for families – have not been effective at keeping explicit content from kids.
More than 70% of men and 40% of women say they’ve consumed sexually explicit content in the past year, according to a recent study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. American teens have reported similar levels of exposure in studies reviewed by ABC News.
Public health experts say young people who view sexually explicit content are more likely to start having sex earlier, engage in unsafe sex, and have multiple partners.
“As long as we’re prioritizing adults’ access to this content and not also prioritizing children’s safety, we are going to destroy the next generation,” said Hawkins. “We are just asking that the pornography companies put a fence around it and make sure that those accessing this content are of age.”
Nineteen states have recently passed laws mandating that sites containing sexually-explicit material harmful to children require all users to upload a copy of their digital or government ID, or perform a biometric scan, in order to verify that they are over 18. Legislators say the measures are common sense steps similar to age checks at brick-and-mortar stores.
“It’s possible to prove your age entirely on your own cell phone. So, no personal data need ever leave the palm of your hand,” said Iain Corby, executive director of the Age Verification Providers Association, an industry trade group that sells technology to adult websites.
Third-party apps — used widely by porn sites across Europe — can make the verification process fast, free, and secure for consumers, Corby said.
“The simple case might be using a driver’s license. So you would be redirected to an agency’s website, and then once you’ve done a photo of your I.D., you do a selfie. And then we check that the two match,” Corby said. “We just tell that website that you’re over 18 – not your name, not your face, and not even your actual date of birth. Just that you were over 18.
“Another option works in a very similar way to facial estimation, but in fact, it’s based on how you move your hands,” added Corby, demonstrating the biometric scan technology for ABC News.
The porn industry, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, says online age-verification requirements are unconstitutional, infringing on adult rights by putting privacy at risk and impeding access to legal content.
Decades of Supreme Court precedent have upheld the constitutionality of pornographic material and adults’ right to access it. In two separate cases, the court previously ruled that the government can’t mandate age verification of users online before allowing them to see explicit material.
“Whenever the government is passing a law in the name of protecting kids, I think there are serious questions to be asked about whether what it’s really doing is saying this speech is bad for everyone,” said Vera Eidelman, an ACLU attorney. “And that’s exactly what the First Amendment exists to protect against.”
Industry advocates say the onus should remain on parents and technology companies, which they claim have the capacity to install smarter content filters and other safety monitoring controls on devices used by kids.
“Kids are going to do what they’re going to do. You know, you don’t ban alcohol because kids can get a fake ID or because they can drink from their parents’ liquor cabinet,” said Ken Fields, an adult film actor who opposes electronic age verification laws. “You do the best you can to try to keep that from happening within reason without infringing on the legal rights of legal adults and citizens.”
The Texas law at issue before the Supreme Court applies to websites with more than one-third of sexually-explicit content harmful to children. It does not apply to search engines or social media sites. Critics say it could also limit teenagers’ access to public health and sexual health resources unrelated to porn.
“I think their heart is in the right place. The execution is not there,” said Nick from Colorado, an attendee at the AVN Expo in Las Vegas last month, the nation’s annual adult entertainment convention. “There’s a way to do it, it’s just not the way it’s being done.”
Several participants, who all declined to share their last names, told ABC News they worried about a loss of anonymity when surfing to adult websites. “If you do absolutely upload your driver’s license, who gets it? So where does that information go?” said Meredith from Tennessee.
“There’s a lot of ways you can get shamed, whether it’s at work or other places,” said Brett from Florida. “It’s more of a privacy concern than anything else.”
During Supreme Court oral arguments last month in a major test case from Texas, a majority of justices appeared sympathetic to the states’ efforts to limit kids’ exposure to sexually explicit material, despite long standing precedent opposing overly burdensome requirements on adults, including electronic age checks.
A decision is expected by the end of June.
“It’s going to be a massive amount of monetary loss, and I think you’re going to see an explosion of illegal, unethical porn because they don’t care and they won’t comply,” said DeVille. “I do not care what you think about porn. This should terrify you because this is a massive government overstep in one of our most cherished things in the United States.”
To Hawkins, a favorable decision would be a sigh of relief.
“The burden can’t only be on parents,” she said of the need to keep children away from pornography. “Something like demanding age verification on these nefarious websites is such a simple, commonsense measure that that would drastically help protect kids from exposure.”
