(WASHINGTON) — In September 2020, as Joe Biden and Donald Trump debated for the first time, moderator Chris Wallace asked how they would reassure Americans the next president would be the legitimate winner that November.
Biden encouraged viewers to vote and said the results would be accepted.
Trump’s final words in response: “It’s a rigged election.”
Four years later, whether American democracy is at stake is all but certain to be a key question at Thursday’s debate.
An ABC News/Ipsos poll in May showed “protecting democracy” was among the top four issues for voters but that they were evenly split on which candidate they trusted to do that.
Issue central to both campaigns
Both candidates are making what happened in November 2020 and then a few weeks later on Jan. 6, 2021, central to their 2024 campaigns, albeit in very different ways.
Protecting democracy is an animating theme of Biden’s reelection bid, as his team paints Trump as an existential threat to the country’s founding principles and the upcoming election as a battle for the nation’s “soul.”
That was a focus of Biden’s speech earlier this month marking the 80th anniversary of D-Day, which, despite being delivered at Pointe du Hoc in Normandy, had a clear message for American viewers tuning in back home.
“American democracy asks the hardest things: to believe that we’re part of something bigger than ourselves,” Biden said. “So, democracy begins with each of us.”
More recently, as Trump huddled with Republicans just steps away from the U.S. Capitol to plot his second-term agenda, the Biden-Harris campaign released a 30-second ad filled with imagery from the Jan. 6 attack by a pro-Trump mob.
“There is nothing more sacred than our democracy,” the narrator said. “But Donald Trump’s ready to burn it all down.”
The campaign told ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang that Biden is preparing ways to hold Trump accountable for his track record and remarks he’s made on various topics, including his comment that he’d be a dictator on “Day 1.”
Trump tries to flip ‘threat’ on Biden
Trump, meanwhile, is trying to counter that Biden is the “threat to democracy,” accusing Biden of weaponizing government and the legal system to prosecute a political opponent.
At the same time, he continues to make his relentless, false claims of fraud in the 2020 election. His assertions have been debunked by his own administration officials, including former Attorney General Bill Barr.
“I think the big thing we have to do is stop the cheating,” Trump said just last week in an interview with his former press secretary, Sean Spicer. “We have to stop the fraud.”
Trump consistently promises retribution against his political foes over his 2020 loss and portrays himself to his supporters as a martyr following four historic indictments, two of which allege illegal efforts to remain in power.
“I’m being indicted for you,” he said this past weekend at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s conference in Washington. “Never forget our enemies want to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom. They want to silence me because I will never let them silence you.”
And he’s made Jan. 6 a sort of rallying cry in his campaign, firing up supporters by claiming he would pardon some of those charged or convicted and referring to them as “patriots” and “warriors” — and even “hostages.”
When it comes to the upcoming election, Biden and the White House have committed to accepting the outcome.
Trump told Time magazine last month he believed he would win and thus eliminate the potential for political violence.
Joe Biden, 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, right, and U.S. President Donald Trump speak during the U.S. presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., on Oct. 22, 2020. (Chip Somodevilla/Bloomberg via Getty Images, FILE)
(WASHINGTON) — As extreme weather events impact Americans across the country, will climate change get the attention it demands on the presidential debate stage?
Marking the first presidential debate of the 2024 general election, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are set to take the stage Thursday night in a studio at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters. The candidates will reconvene for a second debate in September, hosted by ABC News.
Topics surrounding climate change, including the federal response to extreme weather events, are among the numerous matters that divide Biden and Trump’s campaigns, according to environmental experts.
“Perhaps nowhere is the contrast between these two candidates sharper, or of greater public significance, than on their approach to the climate crisis,” Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Action Fund, told ABC News, adding, “The American people need to understand that choice.”
With less than a five-month countdown to Election Day, and recent projections from 538 placing the candidates at a near-tie among polled voters, the presidential debates could be make-or-break events for Biden or Trump.
“Americans deserve to know what the next president will do both to reduce the severity of the climate crisis and to protect them from the impacts that are already inevitable,” Ben Edgerly Walsh, climate and energy program director with Vermont Public Interest Research Group, told ABC News.
“Whether you live in Phoenix, Arizona, Palm Beach, Florida or Montpelier, Vermont, or anywhere else in this country, the climate crisis is going to impact you,” Walsh continued.
Nearly nine out of 10 Americans (87%) have faced at least one extreme weather event in the past five years, including extreme heat waves, severe winter storms, major drought, hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes or major flooding, according to a 2023 survey from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
Among the Americans who have experienced extreme weather events, three-quarters of those polled believe climate change has been at least partially responsible, according to the survey.
“People care about having access to drinking water and being able to turn their power on,” Alys Campaigne, a climate initiative leader with the Southern Environmental Law Center, told ABC News, emphasizing how the effects of climate catastrophes do not adhere to political party lines.
“They care about supporting leaders who can fix the problems,” she said.
Throughout his time in office, Trump repeatedly denounced climate change as a “hoax” while “reversing, revoking or rolling back” more than 100 environmental rules and actions established by the Obama administration, according to analysis published by the New York Times in 2021.
In November 2020, Trump formally withdrew the U.S. from the United Nations’ Paris Climate Accord, an internationally agreed-upon effort to mitigate climate change and ensure that global temperatures do not increase more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
Over a year later, President Biden officially reentered the U.S. back into the Paris Agreement on his first day in office.
If Trump were to be elected for another term, Bapna worries that Trump’s reported close ties with fossil fuel company leaders would “gut” federal climate action.
The Washington Post reported last month that Trump, during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, asked oil executives to raise $1 billion for his campaign, with the promise of “scrapping” Biden-enacted policies on electric vehicles and wind energy.
On May 13, during a rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, Trump promised he would halt offshore wind energy projects “on day one” if elected.
“I’m going to write it out in an executive order. It’s going to end on day one,” Trump said, claiming that wind turbines “kill” whales.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has denied these claims, reporting there are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities.
“Both candidates should address the fact that climate change is not just a scientific topic, but it is something that is felt by everyday Americans,” Dr. Jeremy Porter, head of climate implications research with First Street Foundation, told ABC News.
“We did see a cut to climate-related funding under the last Trump administration, so it is not unlikely to see the same under the new administration simply based on past practices,” Porter said.
Ahead of the election, several former Trump administration officials and conservative activists have released a “Presidential Transition Project” titled Project 2025 that lists proposals for the new administration if Trump were to take office.
Among the proposals are sweeping cuts to climate initiatives, saying the next administration will “stop the war on oil and natural gas.”
Trump has said his motivation behind withdrawing from climate initiatives and pushing for continued reliance on oil and gas is driven by economic needs.
“As President, I will set a national goal of ensuring that America has the No. 1 lowest cost of energy of any industrial country anywhere on Earth,” Trump said on his campaign website. “We will not only match China we will be cheaper than China by a lot. And more energy will mean lower inflation that will mean more jobs.”
Ending subsidies for electric vehicles, withdrawing the country from initiatives for sustainable food production, preventing federal regulators from considering the economic impact of carbon emissions and abolishing the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Loan Programs Office, are listed in Project 2025.
The Biden-Harris administration, meanwhile, has channeled substantial funding toward climate action during their term, experts say, namely through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The legislation offers funding, programs and incentives to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, according to the EPA, noting the Act offers, “new access to clean energy tax credits with an emphasis on reaching disadvantaged populations and communities with environmental justice concerns.”
In April 2024, the Biden-Harris administration announced $20 billion in awards to expand access to clean energy and climate solutions and lower energy costs for communities across the nation.
Despite taking steps toward a clean-energy future, during Biden’s tenure the U.S. has continued to produce and export the most crude oil out of any country, at any time, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Crude oil production averaged 12.9 million barrels per day in 2023, breaking the previous U.S. and global record of 12.3 million, set in 2019, according to the agency.
Biden’s approval rating on environmental issues was 46% in a Gallup poll conducted in March, higher than his ratings on other issues but still below a majority approval.
The Trump and Biden campaigns did not immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.
“Climate action should not — and cannot — become a victim of politicking,” Dr. M. Sanjayan, CEO of nonprofit Conservation International, said, noting how the U.S. has a “long and storied history of bipartisan environmental leadership” seen in the creation of the national parks system and Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
“Climate change affects all of us, and it’s going to take all of us to ensure that our planet remains habitable for generations to come,” Sanjayan said.
The first presidential debate of the general election Thursday — which is slated much earlier in this presidential election cycle than usual — offers both Biden and Trump a chance to change or reinforce voters’ perceptions.
As the candidates take their debate podiums to address the nation, Sanjayan hopes climate stability is regarded as a priority.
“Both parties need to move policy forward, that’s the real conversation,” Sanjayan said. “The public wants a stable climate.”
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday “inadvertently and briefly” uploaded what it said was a “document” about a ruling in a yet-to-be-released, high-profile case over Idaho’s ban on abortions that reportedly indicates the court is poised to require the state allow emergency access — for now.
“The Court’s Publications Unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the Court’s website,” Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement.
McCabe said the opinion “has not been released” but would be issued “in due course.”
Bloomberg News was first to report the errant posting and said the document appeared to indicate that the justices had voted to dismiss the Idaho case as “improvidently granted.”
Such an outcome would mean a lower court order requiring access to abortion in emergency situations in Idaho would be reinstated.
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act prohibits nearly all abortions except in reported cases of rape, incest or to prevent the death of the mother. It does not allow an exception when the health of a pregnant woman is at risk.
The Biden administration argued the law is conflict with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which requires hospitals receiving Medicare funds to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment.”
ABC News did not independently view or obtain the document and it is not clear that what was posted is, in fact, the final ruling. By tradition and under the court’s rules, the justices can change opinions up to the moment of public release.
The premature posting is an embarrassing misstep for the nation’s hight court, which has sought to tighten security measures around the drafting and release of opinions after a 2022 leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s landmark opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health overruling Roe v. Wade.
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump — who has made harsh opposition to immigration a defining message of the GOP — last week pitched what would be one of the most significant expansions of U.S. immigration in decades.
Speaking on a podcast hosted by tech businessmen, Trump announced his support for giving a green card to every noncitizen graduate of a U.S. college (“staple a green card to every diploma,” said the former president).
Hours later, following outrage from some anti-immigration Republicans, he issued a clarification. A statement from a spokesperson given on Friday to ABC News said that the proposed program would involve an “aggressive vetting process,” and that “this would only apply to the most thoroughly vetted college graduates who would never undercut American wages or workers.”
Whether or not they become a major part of his messaging, Trump’s recent comments offer a glimpse of what appeared to be in contrast to how he talks about immigration on the campaign trail — for example, calling for the mass deportation of migrants in the country illegally.ahead of a hotly-contested presidential election where it will be a top issue — and a high-stakes first debate this Thursday.
ABC News spoke to conservative experts and immigration policy insiders to discuss how a potential shift in tone on immigration could play with voters.
“It runs against type, in many ways,” said Whit Ayres, a long-time Republican political strategist. “In some senses, it’s a ‘Nixon goes to China’ kind of phenomenon, where the guy who has been the most critical of immigration offers an opportunity for immigrants who are most likely to create jobs and grow our economy to stay in America.”
For key independent voters, Ayres believes, more vocal support for high-skill immigration could offer a needed complement to the fiery anti-immigrant rhetoric that Trump has long made his calling card.
“It could make swing voters and suburban voters take another look at the way he’s approaching the immigration issue,” Ayres said, “and make it seem more rational than emotional.”
Daniel Di Martino, an economist who studies immigration and a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, also noted that the stance appeals to business leaders looking to hire high-skilled immigrants.
“The audience here is corporations and businesses — not voters, necessarily,” said Di Martino.
Trump announced the position on green cards during an appearance on a podcast hosted by several businessmen from the tech industry, which relies disproportionately on high-skilled worker visas. In recent weeks, Trump has made overtures to Silicon Valley, looking to draw support from a group that has tended to side with Democrats.
As several interviews with conservative immigration advocates and policymakers made clear, though, Trump’s position isn’t without its critics.
“My first-rip reaction was roll-backward shock,” said one senior official who served in the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump administration. “This is so outrageously unthought-through it’s amazing.”
If all foreign students were to receive a green card on graduation, the official objected, “you’re not buying an education — you’re buying citizenship.”
“It’s a terrible idea,” concurred Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an avowed immigration restrictionist. “But it doesn’t surprise me coming from President Trump, because he’s never been a restrictionist.”
“He subscribes to the standard Republican mantra, ‘illegal good, legal bad,'” Krikorian added.
Another former Trump immigration official — former acting director of ICE Tom Homan — was more approving.
“If we’re going to immigrate, let’s immigrate some highly-skilled workers,” Homan said, noting that he believes Trump’s comments on the podcast referred back to proposals from early in his administration.
In 2017, the former president issued an executive order commissioning a review of the H1-B high-skill visa program and backed legislation that would have substantially reduced the number of green cards granted each year, saying that it would “prioritize immigrants based on the skills they bring to our Nation.”
Before his election as president, in 2015, Trump tweeted language similar to his comments on the podcast last week, writing that “When foreigners attend our great colleges & want to stay in the U.S., they should not be thrown out of our country.” But weeks before the 2020 election, the Trump administration would go on to modestly restrict the H1-B program.
Despite opposition from some conservatives, experts interviewed by ABC News agreed that Trump did not risk losing support from opponents of immigration among his base.
“What are those people going to do? Vote for Joe Biden?” asked Ayres. “They’re not going to vote for Donald Trump, because he wants to have high-skilled immigrants in the country? Really?”
“He has got so much credibility on these issues, he can actually take a position that seems slightly at variance with what he said in the past on immigration and get away with it,” Ayres added.
“Nobody’s going to stop voting for him because of what he said,” echoed Di Martino. “If anything, that can only earn him more votes.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led challenge to the Biden administration’s communication with social media companies about misinformation on their sites about COVID-19 and the 2020 election, stating the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue.
The 6-3 opinion was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
“The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics,” Barrett wrote. “This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] general legal oversight’ of the other branches of Government.”
A satellite truck is parked in front of a sign advertising the CNN presidential debate outside of their studios on June 25, 2024 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will face off in-person Thursday for the first of two presidential debates this year, offering the two a high-profile opportunity to try to gain an edge in a race characterized by persistently narrow polling margins.
The debate, moderated by CNN, is occurring unusually early in the election cycle and features the atypical combination of a president and a former president both having to defend their White House records. They will also be clashing under unique circumstances — CNN will have the ability to mute candidates’ microphones when they’re not talking, and there will be no studio audience.
Debates in the past have produced signature moments that helped alter the course of the presidential race, while others have failed to make a dent. Biden and Trump both come into the debate with widespread worries over the fitness for office and character, as well as universal name recognition — and thus hardened voter opinions — that leave few opportunities for fluctuations in the White House contest.
Here are five things to watch Thursday:
Do any gaffes or knockout punches break through?
Traditionally, most parts of debates are forgotten by the time voters head to the polls in November. But marquee moments have the potential to break through.
Gaffes — think Rick Perry’s “oops” moment in a 2011 GOP primary debate — or knockout punches — think Ronald Reagan citing his opponent’s “youth and inexperience” in 1984 — have been able to pierce the national consciousness and live on throughout history, even beyond the years in which those elections took place.
Radars for such moments will be particularly high in Thursday’s debate, as worries over the two candidates’ fitness for office are staples in the race.
Biden, the country’s oldest president ever at 81 years old, is the target of ceaseless attacks over his mental acuity from Trump and his allies, who at times disseminate misleadingly edited videos to appear as if he’s lost during public appearances.
Trump, meanwhile, has made a series of flubs on the trail, including confusing or forgetting people’s names, though polls show worries over his mental fitness for office aren’t as widespread over concerns about Biden.
Strategists said a bad gaffe could damage either campaigns’ chances of victory in November, but that a strong performance, especially for Biden, could help mitigate worries over his age.
Biden “can’t stumble around words. He can’t drift off into these incoherent little tangents that he occasionally does because all he has to do is screw up once, and that’s going to be the thing that lives,” said veteran GOP strategist David Kochel. “I just think there’s a huge opportunity for him to put a lot of things to rest. But it’s also a minefield.”
Character or policy?
Both candidates have ping ponged back and forth between hitting each other on character and policy, still searching for the playbook that’ll put their opponent away.
Biden has repeatedly cast Trump as a threat to democracy, citing his role in inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill and his vow to be a “dictator” on his first day in office — a comment Trump’s allies say was made in jest. He also more recently began highlighting Trump’s recent conviction on 34 felony counts in New York.
He’s also sought to knock the former president on abortion, a key animating policy issue for Democrats, COVID-era economic slumps and for helping dash a bipartisan immigration bill in Congress earlier this year.
Trump, meanwhile, has focused on the president’s age and dubbed him the head of the “Biden crime family,” citing both unfounded allegations of corruption and the president’s son’s recent conviction on gun charges.
Trump also has spoken to voter frustrations over inflation and the border.
“If he says the word reproductive rights or abortion less than 100 times over the course of the 90 minutes, he’s probably failing. But I expect he’ll raise that in almost every answer. If they ask him about tax policy, he’s going to talk about abortion,” GOP strategist Alex Conant said of Biden. “I think beyond that, he’s going to want to remind people about Jan. 6.”
“Trump’s obviously gonna try to talk about inflation as much as possible,” he added.
Whichever tact the candidates take — an emphasis on character or policy — could indicate where they think their opponents are most vulnerable.
Offense vs. defense
The unique nature of a president clashing with his predecessor also leaves it unclear who will be able to seize the offensive.
Traditionally during a presidential reelection campaign, debates are characterized by the president defending his record in the White House, while a challenger is on the offensive while also defending a record in the Senate or governor’s mansion — less impactful and relatable to everyday voters.
Now, though, both candidates will have White House records to back up, leaving it unclear whether either will be able to seize the offensive — and if one or the other will end up stuck on their back foot for the 90-minute tete-a-tete.
Already, millions of dollars have been dumped into ads tearing into the candidates’ respective records — but being seen as a superior attacker on stage could pay dividends for either contender.
Early timing
Thursday’s debate is happening atypically early for a general presidential election, the impacts of which are unclear.
On the one hand, strategists speculated, the timing of the debate has a chance to set the tone for the race in voters’ minds before they truly start tuning in.
“I think it makes the debate more important, because it’s it’ll set the tone for the rest of the campaign. For Biden, who is desperate to make this a choice, not a referendum, it frames the race early on in a way that his campaign wants to frame it. And I think Trump is looking for a knockout punch,” Conant said.
However, the debate will be taking place months before Labor Day, the unofficial day highlighted by politicos as the earliest that most voters start paying attention to the race in earnest. And five months is a political lifetime, meaning the debate could be flushed from voters’ minds by ever-changing news cycles.
“It’s hard to see how there is a big shift or a big thing in this race where there’s also a lot of fairway left to play,” Republican pollster Robert Blizzard said.
Who does the novel format help?
The new format for the debate — which both campaigns agreed to — marks a significant departure from past clashes.
Recently dominated by crosstalk and crowd appeals, this Thursday’s event will in theory be tamer. Microphones will be turned off when candidates are not answering questions, and no audience will be present to cheer or jeer.
The conventional wisdom among operatives in both parties is that the new rules favor Biden by robbing Trump of the ability to feed off an audience or devolve the event into inaudible crosstalk.
“[Trump] is the king, undisputed, undefeated king of crosstalk at a debate. Rewrote the rules basically about it. But he also likes to feed off of a crowd. And so, you take away the feeding off the crowd, you don’t know how President Trump’s going to react to not having that instant feedback from a crowd,” said Chip Saltsman, a strategist who worked on former Vice President Mike Pence’s now-suspended presidential campaign.
However, Republicans also said they hope that limiting crosstalk could make Trump appear less like a bully — at least to the audience at home. There’s still nothing to stop the former president from at least talking during Biden’s answers.
President Joe Biden speaks at an event in the East Room at the White House, June 18, 2024, in Washington. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden announced Tuesday that he will pardon U.S. veterans who were convicted by the military under a regulation that allowed people to be kicked out for being gay.
The White House says the move will impact thousands of military veterans, though officials declined to give a specific number.
“Today, I am righting an historic wrong by using my clemency authority to pardon many former service members who were convicted simply for being themselves,” Biden said in a statement.
“Despite their courage and great sacrifice, thousands of LGBTQI+ service members were forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Biden added. “Some of these patriotic Americans were subject to court-martial, and have carried the burden of this great injustice for decades.”
Biden’s clemency of LGBTQ veterans is a symbolic effort to correct for an era when the military prosecuted people under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibited gay sex. It was in place from 1951 to 2013.
An estimated 100,000 service members since World War II have been kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation, officials say, including more than 13,000 under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy between 1994 and 2011.
The practical impact of offering clemency to people who were convicted is that it could allow veterans to take advantage of benefits they’ve been denied, such as military pensions, home loans and college tuition benefits.
But veterans will not automatically have their convictions wiped — they have to apply and go through a military approval process.
“Once they apply for that certificate of pardon, they can then use that certificate of pardon to apply to have their discharge characterization changed with the relevant military branch. And that for many of them should unlock, down the road, access to critical benefits,” a senior administration official said on a call with reporters on Tuesday.
Asked if the administration is doing outreach to contact veterans who might’ve been discharged from the military decades ago and are unaware they can have their charges wiped, an official was sparse on details but said the White House and the Department of Veterans Affairs are working on plans.
Wednesday’s announcement comes on the heels of multiple other efforts since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed to address the injustices endured by LGBTQ service members.
Since 2012, for example, service members who were kicked out have been able to apply to a military board for a chance to have official records upgraded to remove references to sexual orientation and qualify for more benefits.
But only one-in-four eligible veterans has done so, according to the Pentagon.
And in 2023, the Biden administration announced that the military would for the first time begin proactively reviewing discharge records to identify and help those who were kicked out and have not come forward. But that, too, required veterans to apply for their records to be altered.
Veteran advocates have criticized application-based relief as too obstructive, putting the onus on veterans to fix the military’s wrongs and limiting the reach of the policy.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s executive action on asylum, which was rolled out three weeks ago, has decreased encounters along the border by 40%, the Biden administration said.
The executive action established a rule to turn away migrants who are claiming asylum between ports of entry after there have been seven consecutive days of more than 2,500 encounters along the southern border.
The restrictions on asylum claims would remain in place for an additional 14 days once daily encounters at the border fall to a seven-day average of 1,500 or less.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Texas Civil Rights Project and other civil rights organizations filed a federal complaint challenging the rule, saying it puts vulnerable migrants at risk.
The administration claims the new rule is having an impact, but said the rule is “no substitute” for the bipartisan border bill which failed to advance in the Senate in May.
The daily average of encounters along the border are 2,400 a day — not enough to lift the asylum restrictions but trending downward, the administration said.
The numbers come as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas will be along the southwest border on Wednesday, touring operations.
Since the executive action was implemented, DHS has removed and returned more than 24,000 individuals to more than 20 countries, including by operating more than 100 international repatriation flights.
(SAGINAW, Mich.) — For many in Saginaw, Michigan, a town less than two hours north of Detroit, the once-thriving hub for the auto industry is now a shell of itself.
After several major factories closed in the county, the local economy has struggled to fully recover.
“Some of the things that have plagued us are the lack of good jobs, the ones that can take care of a family,” Hurley Coleman III, executive director of Saginaw County Community Action Center, told ABC News’ “Nightline.”
Coleman’s organization helps to provide low-income and elderly Saginaw residents with resources like food and housing assistance.
While the U.S. unemployment rate is at 4%, dropping to historic lows during the Biden administration’s first term, Black unemployment in Michigan is roughly 50% higher than the national average, hovering over 6.1%, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
“My concern personally is our Black community and our men and our women, being able to have the opportunity to go into homes, financial literacy, education, opportunities to advance,” Coleman said.
In this county, which is roughly 45% Black, according to the U.S. Census, voters have looked to both parties in recent elections in hopes of change.
In 2008 and 2012, Saginaw voted for former President Barack Obama. Trump won the county in 2016, but Biden took a close victory in 2020 by just 303 votes.
In a battleground like Michigan, a key state needed to win the Oval Office, Saginaw is a pivotal county.
Both the Biden and Trump campaigns have made stops in Saginaw, focusing on making sharp contrasts to one another in their vision for rebuilding the economy.
“I’m going to turn it around. I’ll bring you the car industry back to Michigan,” Trump said to voters during a campaign stop on May 1.
Biden met with Coleman during his visit to Saginaw on March 14.
“We talked about inflation and what it feels like to go to the grocery store. To pull out $25 and figure out how far that $25 can stretch,” Coleman told “Nightline.”
“I believe in what President Biden is trying to accomplish and I will be standing with him,” Coleman added.
First Lady Jill Biden and Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff have also made campaign stops in Saginaw, visiting Baldwin’s Smokehouse BBQ, a Black-owned business in East Saginaw.
The owner of the restaurant, Roy Baldwin, 69, told ABC News he voted for Biden in 2020 and plans to do so again in November, but he remains worried about the economy, as he struggles to bounce back from inflation.
“I don’t think either one could make a big difference in the economy. I think things just got to level out. I don’t think a president really has much power to change any of that,” Baldwin said, noting that he thinks division in Congress has stalled policies that would benefit him.
Despite his worries, he says he’s committed to casting a ballot in November.
“My motivation in voting goes back to being a child. When my parents and other Blacks were not allowed to vote, and saw the struggle of at least having a voice,” Baldwin said. “We fought for it. We died to have a right and a voice.”
But not everyone is convinced.
At a gathering hosted by Coleman’s organization, a group of fathers brainstormed ways to improve their community for their children.
Among them was Antonio Brooks, a 47-year-old community organizer who grew up in Saginaw and watched the area transform after multiple factory closures caused a rise in poverty.
Brooks tells ABC News that he has voted Democrat in every election for more than two decades, a political stance he says he was taught to follow in the Black community he was raised in. But this election cycle, for the first time, he is considering not voting at all.
“I have the right to stand firm in my own beliefs and what I believe is they’re [Trump and Biden] not good candidates for the people,” Brooks said.
Brooks voted for Biden in the 2020 presidential election, hoping to see the passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, reform the president and other Democrats advocated for to prevent and remedy racial profiling by law enforcement at the federal, state and local levels.
However, several attempts to pass police reform ultimately have failed in Congress, never making it to Biden’s desk during his first term.
“All we do is go in and just vote for a straight ticket. We don’t really vet the ballots and we don’t really vet the candidates. We just vote Democrat. So we’re not holding them accountable. We’re just giving them our vote,” Brooks said. “I feel like you don’t deserve it, I’m not giving it to you anymore. I keep it to myself.”
While the Black community still overwhelmingly supports Democrats, some of that support could be eroded. A recent ABC News/Ipsos poll shows that some Black people may have moved away from President Joe Biden.
Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Florida, a prominent Black conservative and a vice presidential contender, has been actively courting undecided Black voters in hopes of getting them to vote for Trump. The congressman most recently moderated a roundtable discussion with Trump at a church in Detroit on June 15.
In the last three presidential election cycles, Black men were more likely than Black women to vote Republican, according to ABC News analysis of exit polling data.
“I believe that voters in our country are shifting underneath the feet of the political parties,” Donalds told ABC News Chief National Correspondent and “Nightline” Co-Anchor Byron Pitts.
“I think there’s a frustration with the American people just with politics overall. I think people are somewhat tired of politics being the first, or fifth, topic in every room they walk into. And at the end of the day, I think the American people just want common sense policies that work,” Donalds said.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court, nearing the end of its term, is poised to soon deliver rulings in high-profile cases on everything from presidential power to abortion access.
The justices will release opinions on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday this week. It will mark the first time in at least a decade the justices have done three opinion days in a row.
The timing means key decisions, some with enormous consequences for the 2024 campaign, could be handed down just before President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump meet on stage in Atlanta for their first debate.
Blockbuster cases still to be resolved include whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution on charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss; whether hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters were improperly charged with obstruction; and whether a federal law protecting emergency care overrides a state abortion ban.
Here is a deeper dive into the some of the dozen cases pending before the nation’s high court.
Presidential immunity
In what is likely the most consequential case before the court this term, the justices will decide whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In Trump v. United States, Trump is seeking to quash the federal election subversion case brought by special counsel Jack Smith by claiming immunity.
Lower courts flatly rejected Trump’s argument, but the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents when they heard arguments in April. Their questioning largely focused on what types of official acts would be protected and which would not.
How the justices make that determination will set a new standard for presidential power, and will affect whether Trump stands trial for his unprecedented actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
Jan. 6 obstruction charges
A felony obstruction charge used by federal prosecutors against alleged Jan. 6 rioters is being put to the test in Fischer v. United States.
A former Pennsylvania police officer charged for his alleged participation in the U.S. Capitol attack is challenging the government’s use of a 2002 law enacted to prevent the destruction of evidence in financial crimes. The law includes a sweeping provision for any conduct that “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes an official proceeding.”
The Supreme Court appeared divided on whether the government’s broad interpretation of the law should stand or be narrowed, with conservatives on the bench questioning the lack of prosecutions under the law for matters unrelated to financial or documentary crimes.
The court’s decision could upend hundreds of Jan. 6 cases, including Trump’s. Felony obstruction is one of the four charges the former president is facing in his federal election subversion case.
Idaho abortion ban and emergency care
In Moyle v. United States, the question before the court is whether a federal law requiring emergency rooms to provide stabilizing care to all patients overrides Idaho’s strict abortion ban.
Idaho’s law prohibits nearly all abortions, with exceptions in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk.
The Biden administration argues the law is conflict with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which requires hospitals receiving Medicare funds to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment.”
The case marks the first time the court is evaluating state-level abortion restrictions passed after the fall of Roe v. Wade. Since the court’s conservative majority struck down Roe, 21 states have successfully enacted restrictions or bans on abortion and 14 of those states have total bans with few exceptions.
Homeless encampment ban
In the most significant case on homelessness in decades, the justices are weighing whether a local ordinance to bar anyone without a permanent residency from sleeping outside amounts to “cruel and unusual” punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Officials in Grants Pass, Oregon argue the ordinance is necessary to protect public spaces and encourage a growing tide of unhoused residents to seek shelter. A lower court ruled that punishing homeless people with fines and the possibility of jail time for public camping when they have nowhere else to go is unconstitutional.
A majority of Supreme Court justices seemed to favor the city’s arguments when it heard the case in April.
Social media regulation and free speech
The Supreme Court will determine whether state laws restricting how social media companies moderate content violate the First Amendment.
The measures from Florida and Texas seek to place limits on how the private companies can manage user accounts and feeds on their platforms. Both were passed amid conservative concerns that Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter, were censoring viewpoints on their site based on politics.
In another case, Murthy v. Missouri, the justices will decide if the Biden administration went too far in communicating with social media companies about misinformation on their sites about COVID-19 and the 2020 election.
Republican-led states argued the government’s conduct amounted to illegally coercion, while the administration argued their contact with the companies was aimed at protecting national security and public health.
The justices appeared likely to reject the states’ challenge and side with the Biden administration when it heard arguments in March.
