(SPRINGFIELD, Ohio) — Shortly before the ABC News presidential debate on Tuesday, the parents of a child who was killed in a bus crash caused by a Haitian immigrant in Springfield, Ohio, last year made an emotional plea for former President Donald Trump, vice presidential candidate JD Vance and others to stop using the death of their child “as a political tool.”
“They have spoken my son’s name and used his death for political gain,” said Nathan Clark, who spoke at a Springfield City Commission hearing. Flanked by his wife Danielle, Clark said “My son was not murdered. He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti.”
“I wish that my son, Aiden Clark, was killed by a 60-year-old white man. I bet you never thought anyone would ever say something so blunt. But if that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate-spewing people would leave us alone,” he said tearfully.
Aiden Clark was killed last year when a minivan driven by Hemanio Joseph crashed into his school bus. Joseph, whose legal team says has Temporary Protected Status (TPS), was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and vehicular homicide and sentenced to nine to 13 years in prison in May. Joseph’s team has filed to appeal the conviction.
Some Haitian nationals present in the United States are eligible for TPS, which provides them with temporary permission to live and work in the country legally. The Department of Homeland Security designates certain countries for TPS when it deems it too dangerous for migrants to return due civil unrest, natural disasters, or other reasons.
Nathan Clark called for an apology from Vance, Trump, Bernie Moreno, the Republican Senate candidate in Ohio, and Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy, who he called “morally bankrupt,” for spinning Aiden’s death “towards hate.”
“This needs to stop now,” he said. “They can vomit all the hate they want about illegal immigrants, the border crisis, and even untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members. However, they are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed, to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio.”
The claims about the Haitian community in Springfield spread quickly through conservative circles with accounts like that of the House Judiciary Committee Republicans using AI tools to show Trump holding cats and ducks, portraying him as a savior of animals.
One of the main images circulating online showing a man holding a dead goose was taken not in Springfield, but in Columbus, Ohio, two months ago. The resident who captured the image told ABC News he was surprised to see his image used to “ push false narratives.”
In a Tuesday post on X, Vance made debunked claims about Haitian migrants eating people’s pets in the town — a claim he later conceded could be false.
“In the last several weeks, my office has received many inquiries from actual residents of Springfield who’ve said their neighbors’ pets or local wildlife were abducted by Haitian migrants,” Vance wrote on X. “It’s possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false.”
But then he went on to say, “Do you know what’s confirmed? That a child was murdered by a Haitian migrant who had no right to be here.”
Vance then criticized Harris for the Biden administration’s Temporary Protected Status extension for tens of thousands of Haitian migrants.
A spokesperson for Vance did not respond when ABC News asked for comment and more information about the incident he described in the post.
Asked for comment on the Clarks’ plea, Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, said, “We are deeply sorry to the Clark family for the loss of their son. We hope the media will continue to cover the stories of the very real suffering and tragedies experienced by the people of Springfield, Ohio due to the influx of illegal Haitian immigrants in their community.”
At Tuesday’s debate, Trump brought up the unsubstantiated claims circulating online regarding immigrants in Springfield.
Bryan Heck, Springfield’s city manager, also condemned the misinformation being spread on social media and in the political arena.
“Our Springfield community is making notable progress that contributes to its growing appeal to new residents, including immigrants,” Heck said in an online statement. “This development is underpinned by our city’s diverse and robust industrial base that encompasses the technology, automotive, food production and distribution sectors. The growth in our workforce population has supported the expansion of local businesses, contributed to the stabilization of the local economy. Our commitment to promoting a business-friendly environment has attracted new enterprises to our region and we’ll continue to focus on collaborating with industry leaders who seek to establish operations here.”
He also stated that challenges related to the growing immigrant population are from the pace of the growth and not the growth itself.
“These rumors will not distract us from addressing the real strain on our resources including the impact to our schools, healthcare system and first responders,” Heck said.
Migrants have been drawn to the region because of the low cost of living and work opportunities, the city says on its site. The city estimates there are around 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants living in the county, and the rapid rise in population has strained housing, health care, and school resources.
But the city also says that the migrants are in the country legally and that many are recipients of Temporary Protected Status.
The Haitian Bridge Alliance condemned “baseless and inflammatory” claims about Haitian migrants, arguing they “not only perpetuate harmful stereotypes but also contribute to the dangerous stigmatization of immigrant communities, particularly Black immigrants from the Republic of Haiti.”
The group has also called for an apology.
At Tuesday’s debate, Trump ranted about migrants from Haiti stealing and eating people’s pets.
“They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame.”
Bryan Heck, Springfield’s city manager, also condemned the misinformation being spread on social media and in the political arena.
“Our Springfield community is making notable progress that contributes to its growing appeal to new residents, including immigrants,” Heck said in an online statement. “This development is underpinned by our city’s diverse and robust industrial base that encompasses the technology, automotive, food production and distribution sectors. The growth in our workforce population has supported the expansion of local businesses, contributed to the stabilization of the local economy. Our commitment to promoting a business-friendly environment has attracted new enterprises to our region and we’ll continue to focus on collaborating with industry leaders who seek to establish operations here.”
He also stated that challenges related to the growing immigrant population are from the pace of the growth and not the growth itself.
“These rumors will not distract us from addressing the real strain on our resources including the impact to our schools, healthcare system and first responders,” Heck said.
Migrants have been drawn to the region because of the low cost of living and work opportunities, the city says on its site. The city estimates there are around 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants living in the county, and the rapid rise in population has strained housing, health care, and school resources.
But the city also says that the migrants are in the country legally and that many are recipients of TPS.
The Haitian Bridge Alliance condemned “baseless and inflammatory” claims about Haitian migrants, arguing they “not only perpetuate harmful stereotypes but also contribute to the dangerous stigmatization of immigrant communities, particularly Black immigrants from the Republic of Haiti.”
The group has also called for an apology.
ABC News’ Julia Reinstein and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Voters across the country tuned in to the ABC News presidential debate on Tuesday night to see Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump discuss issues and share their visions for the country.
Many were looking to see how Harris defined herself on the debate stage, especially given that she entered the race relatively late as a presidential candidate.
Some undecided or formerly undecided voters spoke with ABC News both before and after the debate.
Before the debate, they shared what they were hoping to see — and after, if they thought Harris made the case for herself as a presidential candidate as well as their thoughts a potential second debate between Trump and Harris. These voters also previously spoke with ABC News earlier in the election cycle, including before President Joe Biden dropped out of the race.
Patrick O’Rourke, a retired scientist and independent voter from Georgia, said ahead of the debate that he did not trust Harris to be a “unifier” for the country.
“If I can force myself to vote for VP Harris, it will be with the hope of [split-party control between the presidency and Congress] … I hope for a president who can respect the constitution and earn the respect of our country,” he told ABC News by text.
At 10:09 p.m. ET, as the debate was still on air, he texted ABC News that he had turned off the debate.
“Former President Trump has forced me into voting for VP Harris,” he said. The reasons: because of how Trump discussed Ashli Babbit — a Trump supporter who was fatally shot during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol — whom the former president said “was shot by an out-of-control police officer;” and after Trump promoted being endorsed by Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, who is considered an authoritarian leader.
That doesn’t mean he thinks Harris made a strong positive case or defined herself enough, though.
Asked how he felt about her performance, O’Rourke said, “Still don’t know who she is other than not Donald Trump. Right now, that’s enough.”
Many voters feel they could benefit from more information about Harris and her platforms. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that 28% of likely voters said they feel they need to still learn more about Harris, while only 9% of likely voters felt that way about Trump.
O’Rourke said on Wednesday morning that he’s also not interested in another debate.
“One is enough for this cycle. I do not need to see another debate … I don’t need the candidates telling me what the other one’s policies are,” O’Rourke said.
But he said he’d like to see interviews with the candidates where they talk about economic policy, foreign affairs and civil justice priorities.
Rebecca Bakker, a registered nursing professor who lives near Grand Rapids, Michigan, told ABC News by text ahead of the debate that she was still undecided — although she had said beforehand she was not supporting Trump.
She was hoping to hear Harris “drill down on a clear economic message,” as well as clarity from her on how she would solve foreign policy and border issues.
Bakker told ABC News after the debate that the showing solidified her decision to not vote for Trump, who did not come across to her as “presidential” or as outlining clear policies.
“I think Harris did a great job to bait him so he [would] unravel during the debate and this worked to her advantage,” she said by text, but she felt Harris was still a bit “murky” on how her positions on some issues have changed.
“I remain undecided- she didn’t sway me enough (yet) to vote for her but for sure [Trump] swayed me enough NOT to vote for him,” Bakker wrote.
Bakker said she would like another debate to see if either candidate “reframes their narrative to address specifics on policies without ‘one of them’ losing focus and returning to childish behavior,” she wrote, adding she wants to see Harris discuss the economy and border issues more directly.
“So far, I don’t have a clear idea of her plan to address these areas.”
Karen Hughes, an independent voter and retired parole and probation specialist from Nevada, had previously been undecided but had decided to begrudgingly vote for Biden before he left the race in July. Ahead of the debate, Hughes told ABC News by text she was “hoping to see some policy discussions tonight. I’m interested in hearing Trump’s (final) position on abortion, and Harris’s explanation for why she won’t ban fracking.”
The debate affirmed her choice to vote for Harris, Hughes said on Wednesday, as she felt Harris “presents as competent, positive, and very sure of herself. I felt she knew exactly to get into Trump’s head and he fell for it every time,” Hughes said — although she said she felt Harris was still unclear about the shift in her position on fracking. Hughes also criticized Trump’s invocation of “wild conspiracy theories.”
But she’s not looking for another debate: “I think this one was good enough.”
Ian Mackintosh, a voter from Pennsylvania who lives in the Pittsburgh area, also said he hoped ahead of the debate to hear about policy. On Wednesday, he told ABC News by text, “Honestly, I thought it was a complete waste of 90 minutes. If anything, it moved me away from both candidates.”
While he said he understands the challenges of going in depth on complex policy stances in two minutes, it “could have been more substantial” with “less baiting and intentionally riling up the other candidate.”
Mackintosh said he is also disillusioned by Harris’ stance on Israel and Gaza, which he feels is the same as Biden’s.
He said he would not be interested in watching a second debate, and added, “After last night’s debacle I will probably only vote down-ballot.”
Brendan Fitzsimmons, a physician from Wyoming who is a Republican but does not support Trump, told ABC News by text before the debate that he did not expect much from the candidates, “although I would enjoy it if there is a lot of entertainment to it,” he said.
Fitzsimmons admitted that going into the debate, he didn’t feel sold on Harris: “I think she’ll be a terrible president, but I hope she wins,” calling her the “lesser of two evils.”
The morning after the debate, Fitzsimmons said the night changed how he was feeling about Harris.
“I enjoyed the debate and I thought they were both fairly strong, but all in all, Harris was stronger and won the debate and I think showed to a lot of people that she can be president … I am very concerned about foreign affairs, and I think she may be OK in that way,” he told ABC News by text.
Matthew Labkovski, a Republican voter from Florida who supported former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley during the Republican presidential primaries, told ABC News by text before the debate that he hoped to see the candidates discuss policy, and not engage in personal attacks. He said Tuesday evening that he was currently not planning on voting for president.
After the debate, Labkovski said on Wednesday, “I think it actually convinced me not to vote for Donald Trump. All I saw was fear mongering from him and what seemed to be a stretching of the truth,” he said, particularly when it came to Trump’s false claims about abortion and about a false conspiracy theory over immigrants eating pets.
“I am still not convinced though with Harris, as I didn’t get enough policy with her in this debate. To be honest, I would love another debate to see if I was actually comfortable in voting for her,” he said.
Labkovski also criticized Harris’ laughter during the debate, saying that he wished she had remained more even-keeled.
He added that he would have liked her to discuss how she would implement the policies she was talking about.
“How is she going to fight inflation? How is she going to bring peace? That’s what I was hoping the debate would bring … I needed more from her to actually sway from not voting in the presidential slot.”
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump has begun to shut down the possibility of a second match against Vice President Kamala Harris after debating her Tuesday night, claiming he doesn’t need to debate her again because he won the debate.
“Well she wants a second debate because she lost tonight, very badly,” Trump told ABC News late Tuesday night during a surprise appearance in the spin room after participating in the presidential debate hosted by ABC News in Philadelphia.
“So, we’ll, you know, think about that. But she immediately called for a second,” Trump said, refusing to commit whether he’d participate.
Less than an hour after the ABC News presidential debate ended Tuesday night, Harris’ campaign called for another matchup. The campaign put out an email touting her performance at the debate and blasting Trump for his responses and demeanor.
Pressed by ABC News why Trump wouldn’t commit if she lost the debate, Trump said he’s looking at polls, boasting about what he believed is a lead over Harris in polling numbers. Harris leads Trump, 47% to 44%, according 538’s polling average.
Trump’s non-commitment to a second debate comes after the former president in May said he accepted what was going to be a fourth presidential debate with NBC News between Trump and then-candidate President Joe Biden — after debates with CNN, ABC News and Fox News.
In August, after Harris took over the top of the Democratic ticket, Trump again agreed to participate in a debate hosted by NBC, after ABC News and Fox News’ debates. Trump ended up doing a town hall with Fox News last week after Harris declined to participate.
But since the ABC News debate, Trump has been gradually escalating the rhetoric that he doesn’t need a second match with Harris, telling Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday night, “I sort of think maybe I shouldn’t do it.”
“I have to think about it, but if you won the debate, I sort of think maybe I shouldn’t do it. Why should I do another debate?” Trump said on “Hannity.”
During his visit to the Shanksville Volunteer Fire Department in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Wednesday afternoon to honor the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Trump said he was thinking about the possibility of a second debate.
“We’re looking at it, but, you know, when you win, you don’t really necessarily have to do it a second time. So we’ll see, but we had a, I thought we had a great debate last night,” Trump said. “I just don’t know. We’ll think about it.”
On Wednesday morning, Trump called into “Fox and Friends” and said he’d be “less inclined to” do a second debate with Harris. Still, he kept his options open without shutting down the possibility of a second debate completely: “Let’s see what happens.”
And on Wednesday afternoon, Trump posted on his social media site, “In the World of Boxing or UFC, when a Fighter gets beaten or knocked out, they get up and scream, ‘I DEMAND A REMATCH, I DEMAND A REMATCH!'”
“Well, it’s no different with a Debate,” he continued. “She was beaten badly last night. Every Poll has us WINNING, in one case, 92-8, so why would I do a Rematch?”
538 has collected three national polls and one swing-state poll that were conducted since the debate. In all of them, more people who watched the debate said Harris won the debate than said Trump did. On average, 57% of debate watchers nationally said Harris turned in the better performance; only 34% said Trump did.
Showing up in the spin room after the debate, Trump claimed Tuesday night was his “best debate ever,” suggesting his spin room visit had nothing to do with needing to clean up his debate performance.
“We thought it was our best debate ever. It was my best debate ever,” Trump said to a large group of reporters that surrounded him in the spin room.
“It showed how weak they are, how pathetic they are, and what they’re doing to destroy our country, on the border, with foreign trade, with everything. And, I think it was the best debate I’ve ever personally — that I’ve had,” Trump continued.
But after the debate, Lara Trump, the former president’s daughter-in-law and Republican National Committee co-chair who served as the former president’s surrogate in the spin room, said he had a “fine night,” adding she wished there were more debates.
“I think he had a night that we expected to see, which is that Donald Trump was four years in the White House. We all remember how our lives were then,” Lara Trump said when asked about Trump’s performance.
Pressed by reporters if she means her father-in-law didn’t have a great night, Lara Trump said, “I mean, he had a fine night,” and then added: “He had a night that was absolutely necessary, and I am so happy we finally got to see these two people on the stage.”
“I wish we had two more debates. We usually have three presidential debates. Kamala Harris has said — she only wants one, so far,” Lara Trump said just minutes before the Harris campaign called for a second debate. “Donald Trump would certainly be willing to do another debate.”
Some Democrats on Capitol Hill said Wednesday weighed in on the prospect of another Harris-Trump debate.
Sen. Tim Kaine said he supports another presidential debate between Harris and Trump, but said he didn’t think the former president would agree.
“I’m sort of not expecting that President Trump will accept a second debate, but [Harris] is very willing to do it and that’s good,” Kaine said.
Asked if another debate is needed, Sen. Cory Booker said “I don’t know about the word ‘needs.'”
“I mean this one debate was so revelatory, it so exposed Donald Trump,” Booker said. “I think it was a reminder for a lot of people just how unhinged and unchecked this guy is; how he can’t control himself.”
ABC News’ Allison Pecorin contributed to this report.
Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — During the presidential debate Tuesday, former President Donald Trump criticized Vice President Kamala Harris on her support for taxpayer-funded medical care for transgender individuals.
“Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison,” Trump said. “This is a radical left liberal that would do this.”
The comment was the only mention of the LGBTQ+ community on the debate stage.
Trump’s comments appear to refer to a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire filled out by then-Sen. Harris during her first presidential bid.
The questionnaire asked: “As President, will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care? If yes, how will you do so?”
She responded yes, adding that “it is important that transgender individuals who rely on the state for care receive the treatment they need, which includes access to treatment associated with gender transition.”
She noted that as the California state attorney general, she backed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation decision to provide gender transition surgery to state inmates.
In 2015, while Harris was the attorney general, California and the Transgender Law Center reached a historic settlement to move a transgender woman inmate to a women’s correctional facility and provide her with transgender medical care that had been deemed medically necessary by several medical and mental health clinicians, according to the settlement agreement.
The case was hailed by LGBTQ activists, who said it would impact incarcerated trans people nationwide.
Harris’ response in the ACLU questionnaire continued, adding that she supported policies to allow federal inmates to obtain “medically necessary care for gender transition” while incarcerated.
“I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment,” she wrote.
Harris has not publicly changed her position on the transgender care issue. ABC News has reached out to the Harris campaign for comment.
Harris and Trump policies on gender-affirming care
The Harris-Walz campaign has not officially released any policy proposals or promises concerning gender-affirming care so far. However, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed an executive order in May protecting and supporting access to gender-affirming health care for LGBTQ people in the state.
In his order, Walz notes that numerous medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said that access to gender-affirming care is essential to the health and wellness of gender diverse people.
Studies by researchers at Boston Children Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, and published by the American Psychological Association have shown that gender-affirming care can be life-saving for transgender and nonbinary children and adolescents, promoting positive mental and physical health and well-being.
The order came amid a wave of legislation from conservative lawmakers that has led to at least 26 states implementing policies that restrict gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
Supporters of trans care bans argue that children and their families should wait until they’re older to make decisions about their gender and health.
The Biden-Harris administration has also signaled support for transgender Americans, reversing a Trump-era ban on transgender military service and revising Title IX to include protections for gender identity.
In one statement to nonprofit news organization The 19th, the White House said that gender-affirming surgeries should be limited to adults — as is typically the case — but supports gender-affirming care for minors.
Trump has said that he plans to ban taxpayer funding for sex-change surgeries — which would include gender-affirming care for detainees — and bar schools from “promoting gender transition.”
He also stated that he would reverse the Title IX revisions concerning gender identity.
LGBTQ issues have been front and center on both national and state political arenas. More than 500 bills impacting the LGBTQ community have been considered in the U.S. this year, according to the ACLU.
LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD criticized the lack of attention on LGBTQ issues on the debate stage.
“The debate included only one mention of LGBTQ Americans, a smear against transgender people that went unchallenged,” said GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis in a statement. “As Americans begin returning ballots and line up for early voting, reporters must remember that the next President of the United States will have a profound impact on the LGBTQ community and all marginalized people. We urge reporters to ask leaders for specific ways they will ensure we are always welcome and safe.”
(WASHINGTON) — House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday announced he’s pulling a planned vote for the afternoon on a short-term government funding bill.
The measure includes the SAVE Act, which would require individuals to provide proof of U.S. citizenship to vote. Johnson said he will continue to rally support for the act to be included in the spending bill.
“The American people demand and deserve that we do everything possible to secure the elections. That’s what we’ve been saying consistently. That’s what I have heard from the people across the country in 198 cities across 39 states. It’s consistent from coast to coast, north to south,” Johnson said, maintaining his support for the bill. A number of Republican lawmakers have said they oppose the measure, including Reps. Cory Mills, Tim Burchett, Thomas Massie, Jim Banks and Matt Rosendale, among others.
Johnson said he tasked Majority Whip Tom Emmer “to do the hard work and build consensus” on the plan.
“We’re going to work through the weekend on that. And I want any member of Congress in either party to explain to the American people why we should not ensure that only U.S. citizens are voting in U.S. elections,” Johnson, R-La., said. “We’re going to work on that issue around the clock because we have an obligation to the people to do it. And that’s what the fight is. That’s what’s important.”
“It’s the most pressing issue right now and we’re going to get this job done,” he added. “No vote today because we’re in the consensus-building business here in Congress. With small majorities, that’s what you do. That’s what I’ve been doing since I became Speaker.”
Johnson can only afford to lose the support of four Republicans on a party-line vote if there are no absences. House Democrats are expected to remain unified against it for the most part. However, moderate Maine Democratic Rep. Jared Golden said he would vote in favor of the bill.
Former President Donald Trump posted Tuesday on his social media platform that if congressional Republicans “don’t get absolute assurances on Election Security,” they should vote against a continuing resolution to fund the government.
The White House, Senate Democrats and House Democrats have all slammed Johnson’s plan to tie the voter eligibility legislation to government funding.
House leaders regularly attach priority items to must-pass stopgap funding bills as a means of pushing through measures their members demand.
Johnson’s opening salvo to address the looming funding deadline likely won’t be a winning solution. But with a narrow majority and conservatives clamoring for the SAVE Act, he will attempt to lay down a legislative marker in the House — and give GOP members legislation to point to on the campaign trail.
Sources said Johnson previously told members that he wanted to hold a vote on his short-term funding plan early this week. It was on the
Pressed if he’d accept a short-term funding bill without any policy riders like the SAVE Act, Johnson has said, “Let’s see if they [White House and Senate] have the guts to tell the American people they want illegals to vote in these elections.”
Senate Democrats have already said the SAVE Act is a non-starter for them, noting that it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote, but Johnson’s move sets up a showdown between the chambers with just months remaining until Election Day.
What is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act?
The SAVE Act, which has the backing of former President Donald Trump and the far-right House Freedom Caucus, is a bill that seeks to expand proof of citizenship requirements to vote in federal elections. It bans states from accepting and processing an application to register to vote in a federal election unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.
The House passed the SAVE Act on July 10 by a bipartisan vote of 221-198, with five election-year vulnerable Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with all Republicans. It’s unclear whether that same support would carry over into Johnson’s planed showdown vote over funding the government.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus calls the bill “extreme and dangerous” and warns it would purge millions of legal voters from state rolls and make it much more difficult for Americans to reregister to vote.
“Let’s call it what it is — this is a direct attack on hard-working families, including Latino communities,” the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said in a statement following House passage of the bill.
During a press briefing last Tuesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called on Republicans to drop the SAVE Act from their funding bill and to instead advance a clean short-term version, called a continuing resolution, or CR.
“We want to see a clean CR,” Jean-Pierre told ABC’s Karen Travers. “That’s what we want to see.”
The administration “strongly opposes” the SAVE Act, Jean-Pierre said. “It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. It’s already illegal.”
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Shalanda Young said that “Congressional Republicans are wasting time” when there is a bipartisan path for funding.
“Their 6-month CR approach ignores pressing needs that have real consequences for our defense, our veterans, and our communities,” Young said in a statement last week. “We urge Congress to quickly pass a bill to keep the government open and provide emergency funding for disaster needs across the country, as they have done on a bipartisan basis many times in the past.”
Senate Democrats almost sure to oppose
Johnson’s proposal will set off a fierce fight between the House and the Senate, as Senate Democrats will almost certainly reject the stopgap bill because of the inclusion of the SAVE Act.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray had called it a “poison pill” and a “nonstarter.”
“We’ve seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. Senate Democrats will continue to work in a bipartisan way to ensure we can keep the government funded and deliver responsible, bipartisan spending bills that can actually be signed into law before the end of the year,” Murray said.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not yet outlined a plan for dealing with government funding, but he warned House colleagues against the inclusion of any partisan matters in a must-pass funding bill.
“As we have said each time we’ve had CR, the only way to get things done is in a bipartisan way and that is what has happened every time,” Schumer said in a statement to ABC News.
In floor remarks today welcoming the Senate back from a six-week recess, Schumer on Monday called Johnson’s opening proposal “transparently unserious and seemingly designed for scoring political points instead of avoiding a shutdown.”
The March 2025 extension date proposed by Johnson also is not likely to sit well with Democrats, who may seek a much shorter stopgap that allows them to continue to debate and potentially lock in annual appropriations during the lame-duck session at the end of this year.
Schumer on Monday flatly rejected Johnson’s timeline and called for a bipartisan path forward, suggesting Democrats will hold out for a clean, shorter extension.
Another funding fight
If it feels to you like we just did this, you’re not wrong.
Government funding expires annually at the end of the federal government’s fiscal year on Sept. 30.
Passing annual appropriations for 2024 was especially calamitous. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy lost his job over it. Johnson was installed because of it, but not without also facing threats to his position. Johnson ultimately implemented a never-before-seen two deadline system to help push the ball over the line.
Congress did not complete its work codifying current spending levels until mid-March, blowing months past the annual deadline. By the time all the bills were passed, they only funded the government for about six months.
Once again, the deadline is fast-approaching at the end of the month.
As of Monday, the House had passed five of the 12 individual government funding bills, including for Defense, Homeland Security, Interior-Environment, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and State-Foreign Operations.
House GOP leaders hoped they would be able to clear all 12 bills, but the reality is that there is not enough time to do so.
Right after taking the gavel in October 2023, Johnson said in a letter obtained by ABC News to colleagues that he would not break for August recess until all 12 appropriations bills had passed the House.
“DO NOT break for district work period unless all 12 appropriations bills have passed the House,” Johnson wrote in his first letter as speaker.
That promise was not kept.
Meanwhile, to date, the Senate has not passed a single appropriations bill.
(PHILADELPHIA) — Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump presented different visions for the future of abortion rights during their presidential debate Tuesday. A back-and-forth between the candidates ended with Harris saying the government shouldn’t be deciding what women do with their bodies, but that is what Trump wants — a claim he denied.
Harris promised to sign a bill that reinstates protections for abortion rights that existed under Roe v. Wade if it reaches her desk as president while Trump would not commit to vetoing a national abortion ban if it comes to his desk.
During the debate, Trump — who claimed he wouldn’t have to veto a national ban — said he believes in exceptions for abortions in cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother.
“There’s no reason to sign a ban because we have gotten what everyone wanted,” Trump said, referring to leaving the regulation of abortion up to state governments.
Harris had falsely asserted that Trump supported a national abortion ban.
At least 22 states have abortion bans or restrictions in effect since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe — ending federal protections for abortion rights. Of those states, 14 have ceased nearly all abortion services and four have six-week bans in effect, prohibiting abortion care before most women know they are pregnant.
Three of the five U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe were appointed by Trump when he was president.
Ten states will have reproductive rights-related questions on the ballot this November, nine of which specifically address abortion.
Voters in all six states that have had abortion questions on the ballot since Roe was overturned have voted to uphold abortion rights.
During the debate, Trump also falsely claimed that some states allow for the killing of an infant after birth. Killing a baby after birth is illegal in all 50 states.
Most states that allow abortions do so until fetal viability. But, there are no gestational limits on abortion in 9 states — including Colorado, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Gov. Tim Walz’s state of Minnesota — and Washington, DC.
Advocates for abortion rights say the absence of legal consequences after fetal liability doesn’t mean doctors will try to terminate full-term, healthy pregnancies. In fact, access to third-trimester procedures is limited, costly and medically complex — typically done only when a woman’s life is threatened or the fetus isn’t expected to survive.
Many Democrats say they want to pass legislation that would codify the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe vs Wade, which protects abortion rights up until viability.
Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris shakes hands with Donald Trump, as former Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg and President Joe Biden look on, during a remembrance ceremony on the 23rd anniversary of the September 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center at Ground Zero, in New York City on September 11, 2024. (Adam Gray/AFP via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump shook hands again Wednesday morning as they arrived at the 9/11 anniversary ceremony in downtown Manhattan.
Harris, who was standing between New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and President Joe Biden, reached over the president to shake hands with Trump, who was standing next to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The greeting came less than 12 hours after Harris and Trump met for the first time at a presidential debate in Philadelphia, hosted by ABC News.
U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, right, and former U.S. President Donald Trump during the second presidential debate at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S., on Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2024. (Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(PHILADELPHIA) — Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump debated for the first time on Tuesday, a consequential matchup with just eight weeks until Election Day.
The debate was hosted by ABC News at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. The 90-minute showdown was filled with animated zingers and tense exchanges on key policy issues facing the American people.
Harris sought to portray herself as a new generation of leadership with a track record of results, while Trump tried to paint her as a radical Democrat and continued to criticize the Biden administration.
Here are some key takeaways from the debate:
Harris put Trump on defensive early on
The vice president didn’t waste any time in going on the attack against Trump.
“What we have done and what I intend to do is build on what we know are the aspirations and the hopes of the American people,” Harris said minutes into the debate. “But I’m going to tell you all, in this debate tonight, you’re going to hear from the same old, tired playbook, a bunch of lies, grievances and name-calling.”
She later took a dig at his rallies, claiming people leave them early out of “exhaustion” as he gives long speeches that sometimes include references to windmills causing cancer or to fictional characters such as Hannibal Lecter. Trump immediately defended his events and crowd sizes, saying he has the “biggest” and “most incredible” rallies in political history.
After Trump railed against crime in the nation, Harris said she thought the comments were “so rich” coming from someone who has been criminally charged multiple times. Trump has denied all wrongdoing in each of the cases against him.
Trump continues attacks on — Biden
Trump, who had a difficult time changing his message when Harris succeeded President Joe Biden as the Democratic Party’s nominee, continued to criticize Biden and continually tried to tie Harris to Biden’s record — most notably on the economy, immigration and leadership abroad.
“She is Biden,” he said. “The worst inflation we’ve ever had, a horrible economy because inflation has made it so bad, and she can’t get away with that.”
Harris, who has supported many of Biden’s stances while also offering her own economic proposals, quickly responded, “Clearly, I am not Joe Biden, and I am certainly not Donald Trump. And what I do offer is a new generation of leadership for our country.”
In the “spin room” with reporters after the debate, Trump continued to blast the Biden-Harris record.
“She’s trying to get herself away from Biden, and she wasn’t able to do that tonight,” he said.
Did Harris succeed in introducing herself to viewers?
A key question heading into the debate was whether Harris would be able to define herself to voters who say they don’t feel they know her or what she stands for well enough.
A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found a sizable share of likely voters (28%) and registered voters (31%) feel they need to know more about Harris as a candidate. Those numbers were even higher among independent voters: 41% of registered independents and 38% of likely voters who identified as independent said they needed to learn more about her.
Harris began her first response to a question on the economy by saying she was raised by her mother in a middle-class family. Later, she highlighted her background as a prosecutor who has taken on transnational criminal organizations. She also noted that as a senator, she was at the U.S. Capitol when it was attacked by a pro-Trump mob on Jan. 6.
She also hit on some of her signature policy proposals, including her support for reproductive freedom and economic plans like expanding the Child Tax Credit and assisting first-time homebuyers. She also noted that both she and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, are gun owners and wouldn’t take people’s guns away.
While neither candidate went too deep into policy specifics, Harris did try to paint a clear contrast between what she is offering and what she believes Trump is proposing if elected.
“What I do offer is a new generation of leadership for our country, one who believes in what is possible, one who brings a sense of optimism about what we can do instead of always disparaging the American people,” she said.
Meanwhile, Trump argued Harris is a “radical left liberal” and pressed her on some of her shifts on police funding, fracking and more since her 2019 Democratic primary campaign.
Trump still refuses to concede he lost the 2020 election
Trump tried to explain his own remarks recently in which he appeared to accept he lost the 2020 election, including his comment last week that he “lost by a whisker.”
“I said that?” Trump said on the debate stage when it was read back to him.
“Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?” ABC News moderator David Muir asked.
“No, I don’t acknowledge that at all,” he said. “That was said sarcastically.”
Asked about the peaceful transfer of power, Trump did not say that he regrets anything about his actions on Jan. 6, 2021. He claimed he had “nothing” to do with what happened that day, which culminated in an attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Race comes up, but not gender
For the second time, Trump is campaigning against a woman for president. Harris’ gender was not broached during the debate, though her race was.
Asked by moderators about his previous false comments on her racial identity — including that Harris, who is Black and South Asian, “happened to turn Black” — Trump said he “couldn’t care less.”
“I don’t care what she is. I don’t care,” he said. “Whatever she wants to be is OK with me.”
When pressed, Trump doubled down, saying he read that she was not Black, and then that she was.
“And that’s okay. Either one was okay with me. That’s up to her. That’s up to her,” he said.
Asked for her thoughts, Harris went on the attack — but didn’t focus on herself. Instead, she focused on Trump’s falsehoods about former President Barack Obama’s birthplace and noted “he was investigated because he refused to rent property to Black families” to cast him as divisive and unfit.
“Honestly, I think it’s a tragedy that we have someone who wants to be president who has consistently, over the course of his career, attempted to use race to divide the American people,” she said. “I think the American people want better than that, want better than this.”
“This is the most divisive presidency in the history of our country,” Trump responded.
(PHILADELPHIA) — Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump met for the first time Tuesday in their first presidential debate of the 2024 election, hosted by ABC News.
The high-stakes, 90-minute debate is being held at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center, with Trump and Harris arguing their case for the White House.
As the Democratic and Republican nominees debate the most pressing topics facing the nation, ABC News is live fact-checking their statements for answers that are exaggerated, need more context or are false.
Please check back for ongoing updates.
HARRIS CLAIM: 16 Nobel laureates say Trump’s plan would increase inflation and land us in a recession
FACT-CHECK: Mostly true
Harris correctly describes what the Nobel laureates said about inflation during a Trump presidency: “There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation.” But while the group describes Harris’ agenda as “vastly superior” to Trump’s, their letter doesn’t specifically predict a recession by the middle of 2025. Rather, the group wrote: “We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.”
The 16 economists are George Akerlof, Angus Deaton, Claudia Goldin, Oliver Hart, Eric S. Maskin, Daniel L. McFadden, Paul R. Milgrom, Roger B. Myerson, Edmund S. Phelps, Paul M. Romer, Alvin E. Roth, William F. Sharp, Robert J. Shiller, Christopher A. Sims, Joseph Stiglitz and Robert B. Wilson.
-PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump wants “20% tax on everyday goods” that would cost families “about $4000 more a year”
FACT-CHECK: True, but needs context
Trump has proposed a universal “10-20%” tariff on all U.S. imports, from cars and electronics to wine, food products and many other goods. He has also proposed a 60% tariff on imports from China. Vice President Harris called the plan “Trump’s sales tax,” though the former president has not explicitly proposed such a tax. Independent economists, however, say the proposed import tariffs would unquestionably result in higher prices for American consumers across the board.
The precise financial impact on families is hard to predict and estimates vary widely — from additional annual costs per household of $1,700 to nearly $4,000, depending on the study. Trump has not called for any tax hikes for American families.
He has proposed exempting Social Security benefits and tips from taxation, as well as extending individual tax cuts enacted in 2017.
-ABC News’ Devin Dwyer
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump says “We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation’s history.”
FACT-CHECK: False, but it was very high
It’s true that early in Joe Biden’s presidency the annual inflation rate peaked at roughly 9 percent (June of 2022), but that’s not the highest it’s ever been. There are several examples of the inflation rate being much higher than 9 percent in the U.S, including in the immediate aftermath of WWII and during the oil embargo and shortages of the late 70’s and early 1980s.
But, there are several examples of the inflation rate being much higher than 9 percent in the U.S., including in the immediate aftermath of WWII and during the oil embargo of the late 70’s and early 1980s when the inflation rate peaked at 14.5 percent. The inflation rate as of July 2024 is at 2.9 percent annual inflation, the lowest it has been in 3 years. It should also be noted that President Biden has falsely claimed that he inherited a high rate from his predecessor. In fact, inflation was at 1.4 percent when he took office.
*Data for this fact check was gathered from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, or St. Louis Fed
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
The unemployment rate peaked at 14.8% in April 2020 when Trump was in office – that was indeed the highest level since the Great Depression, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But unemployment rapidly declined to 6.4% in January 2021 by the time Trump left office, as the economy started to rebalance. And that 6.4% unemployment rate is still better than the 10% peak during the Great Recession in October 2009.
If you eliminate pandemic statistics, the lowest unemployment rate under Trump was just slightly higher than the lowest point under Biden. Both were good: 3.5% under Trump and 3.4% under Biden at their lowest respectively, according to data provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Bureau of Labor Statistics.
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump “killed” bill that would have secured border
FACT-CHECK: True
Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled a $20 billion plan to substantially bolster security along the U.S.-Mexico border. It would have added hundreds of border patrol and ICE agents and asylum officers; funded construction of new border wall; expanded detention facilities; ended “catch and release;” effectively closed the border entirely when illegal crossings surge; and raised the bar for asylum claims, according to the bill.
The influential Border Patrol union, which has previously endorsed Trump, publicly backed the bill. But hours after the draft legislation was unveiled on Feb. 5, Trump urged his party to oppose the bill, even as many Republicans have spent years lobbying for some of the security measures included in the deal.
“I’ll fight it all the way,” Trump told supporters at a Las Vegas rally Feb. 8. “A lot of the senators are trying to say, respectfully, they’re blaming it on me. I say, that’s okay. Please blame it on me.” Trump openly invoked election-year politics as a motivation for his position: “This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party. It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans,” Trump wrote on social media. The bill failed a key Senate procedural vote in May, with all but one Republican voting against it, including all those involved in crafting the deal.
TRUMP CLAIM: Haitian migrants eating pets in Ohio
FACT-CHECK: False
According to the city of Springfield, Ohio, these claims are false. A city spokesperson tells ABC News there have been “no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals in the immigrant community.”
Rumors that migrants from Haiti are stealing and eating animals there have run rampant after a series of claims spread widely online, amplified by social media posts from leading political figures in recent days.
“Additionally, there have been no verified instances of immigrants engaging in illegal activities such as squatting or littering in front of residents’ homes. Furthermore, no reports have been made regarding members of the immigrant community deliberately disrupting traffic,” the spokesperson added.
The House Judiciary GOP X account used AI tools to show Trump holding cats and ducks, portraying him as a savior of animals.
One of the main images circulating online, showing a man holding a dead goose, was taken not in Springfield but in Columbus, Ohio, two months ago. The resident who captured the image told ABC News he was surprised to see his image used to ” push false narratives.”
According to the Springfield News-Sun, the Springfield Police Department has not received any reports of pets being stolen and eaten. The city even created a webpage debunking some claims.
Migrants have been drawn to the region because of low cost of living and work opportunities, the city says on its site. The city estimates there are around 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants living in the county, and that the rapid rise in population has strained housing, health care, and school resources. But the city also says that the migrants are in the country legally and that many are recipients of Temporary Protected Status from the federal government.
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump ‘intends on implementing’ Project 2025
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
Conservative allies and former advisors to Donald Trump published a 900-page policy blueprint in April 2023 to help a new Republican administration transition to power. The effort – dubbed Project 2025 – was organized by the Heritage Foundation, a prominent right-wing think tank. It details proposals for staffing the government and restructuring federal agencies, writing regulations, managing the economy and ensuring national security.
Harris claims Trump “intends on implementing” the “detailed and dangerous” plan if he wins a second term. But Trump denies any association with Project 2025, saying on social media in July: “I have not seen it, have no idea who is in charge of it,” and also publicly denounced its substance as “seriously extreme” and developed by the “severe right.”
“I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” Trump posted on social media. Many of the document’s priorities, however, are broadly championed by Trump, including construction of a border wall, mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and banning transgender athletes from women’s sports, among other things.
Dozens of former members of his administration were involved in the project, including former cabinet secretaries and West Wing aides. Many of the same people helped craft the Republican Party platform, ABC News has reported. Speaking at a Heritage Foundation event in April 2022, Trump said: “This is a great group and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do… when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”
HARRIS CLAIM: ‘If Donald Trump were to be reelected, he will sign a national abortion ban.’
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump has said he has “no regrets” in selecting the Supreme Court justices who overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. But he also repeatedly has promised that if elected, he will not sign a federal abortion ban into law and will leave the issue up to the states. One open question this year had been whether he would enforce the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that prohibits mailing materials used in abortions.
Among other things, the law would make it illegal to ship the drug mifepristone, which is used to terminate early pregnancies. The Biden administration has said the law is unenforceable because the drug has medical uses other than abortion, and it would be impossible to know how the drug was being used. Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, and other conservatives have called for the enforcement of the law.
In an August interview with CBS News, Trump said that while “we will be discussing specifics of it,” he will not enforce the Comstock Act.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said ‘they didn’t fire anybody having to do with Afghanistan.’
FACT-CHECK: True, but needs context.
It is accurate that no one with a direct role in the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2021 has been held publicly accountable.
Trump appears to be specifically referring to a suicide bombing that killed 13 U.S. service members. U.S. Central Command ultimately concluded that the bombing was not preventable and that members of a Marine sniper team were mistaken when they told others they had the suicide bomber in their sights.
Trump, congressional Republicans and several Gold Star families say they believe these investigations have not gone far enough.
TRUMP CLAIM: Kamala Harris wants to ban fracking
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
It’s true that Harris once called to ban fracking altogether, but she has since said she changed her policy view. During a CNN town hall on climate change in 2019 when she was still a Senator, Harris said, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Fracking is short for “hydraulic fracturing,” and it’s a technique used in the extraction of oil and natural gas from underground rock formations.
Harris also said she backed California’s efforts to stop the practice in her home state when she was the state’s attorney general. However, she eventually changed her view on fracking when she became Biden’s running mate in 2020. During an October 2020 segment on ABC’s The View, Harris said neither she nor Biden would ban fracking. Harris reiterated that she would not ban fracking during the ABC News Presidential Debate.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said ‘I’d like to give you 10,000 National Guard soldiers. They rejected me. Nancy [Pelosi] rejected me.’
FACT-CHECK: False
The final report by the bipartisan Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol determined there was “no evidence” to support the claim that Trump gave an order “to have 10,000 troops ready for January 6th.”
The report quoted President Trump’s Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who directly refuted this claim under oath, saying, “There was no direct order from the President” to put 10,000 troops to be on the ready for January 6th.
Instead, the report noted that when Trump referenced that number of troops, it was not to protect the Capitol but that he had “floated the idea of having 10,000 National Guardsmen deployed to protect him and his supporters from any supposed threats by left-wing counter-protesters.”
HARRIS CLAIM: If elected, Trump would be immune from criminal prosecution
FACT-CHECK: Partly true
Vice President Harris claimed Trump would be “immune from any misconduct” and have “no guard rails” after a landmark Supreme Court decision in June.
The court did rule the core powers, which include the ability to make treaties, veto bills, nominate cabinet members, appoint ambassadors, act as Commander-in-Chief of the military, and grant pardons.) The court also said that presidents enjoy “at least presumptive immunity” for other “official acts” – defined broadly as actions within the “outer perimeter” of official responsibilities but not “manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”
While the decision is widely construed as granting broad protection for a president, the court said presidents are “not above the law” and enjoy no “absolute” immunity, leaving room for a narrow set of cases where a current or former president could face criminal prosecution. There is also no immunity for “unofficial” acts, the court said.
Trump faces a pair of active federal criminal cases against him brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The Supreme Court decision does not mean those prosecutions cannot move forward, but it has significantly delayed proceedings and made it more difficult to convict Trump. If he were to win a second term, Trump’s Justice Department could dismiss the Special Counsel and effectively end the cases against him.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said he ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and ‘Biden put it back on day one.’
FACT-CHECK: Mostly false
The Nord Stream 2 is an undersea pipeline that would have allowed Russia to increase natural gas exports to Western Europe while bypassing Ukraine and depriving Kyiv billions of dollars in access fees. It’s true that in 2019, Trump announced sanctions that halted the pipeline’s construction. But by that point, the pipeline was nearly complete with a majority of the project occurring under Trump’s presidency, according to a 2020 analysis by the Congressional Research Service.
Biden later waived sanctions against the pipeline’s builder at the request of Germany in 2021, but reimposed penalties the following year as Russia invaded Ukraine.
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump’s deal with the Taliban is to blame for the chaotic withdrawal in Afghanistan.
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
The top government watchdog on the Afghanistan war blames Trump’s 2020 deal with the Taliban as “the single most important factor” in the rapid collapse of Afghanistan’s forces a year later. But the same office also says Biden’s decision to stick with a firm withdrawal date of U.S. troops was a factor as well.
Trump’s deal with the Taliban called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by May 2021 and release 5,000 of its fighters from Afghan prisons so long as they agreed not to attack U.S. forces. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the agreement was seen by Afghan forces as a “signal that the U.S. was handing over Afghanistan to the enemy as it rushed to exit the country.” Trump also had reduced U.S. troop levels to the lowest point in the 20-year war, and Afghan forces weren’t prepared to take over, according to the inspector general.
Biden aides say the poor security situation when he took office in January 2021 put the newly elected president in an almost impossible position. Biden could have surged U.S. troops to the country to try to bolster the weakened Afghan government. But doing so would have extended what was already the nation’s longest war and put American forces at risk of renewed attacks by the Taliban. According to the inspector general, Biden’s announcement that he would stick with a 2021 withdrawal date contributed to the poor morale among Afghan troops, paving the way for a government collapse and subsequent Taliban takeover.
TRUMP CLAIM: Harris and Walz support abortion ‘in the seventh month, the eighth month, the ninth month… And probably after birth.’
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump has claimed that Democrats in some states allow for the killing of an infant after birth. This is false.
There is no state that allows the killing of a baby after birth. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states. His false claim stems from a refusal by many Democrats to support any legal restrictions on abortion, and he specifically references comments by former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a physician, who once said that in rare, late-pregnancy cases when fetuses are nonviable, doctors deliver the baby, resuscitate it if the mother wishes, and then have a “discussion” with the mother.
While most states that allow abortion do so only up until fetal viability, there are several states – including Colorado, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Gov. Tim Walz’s home state of Minnesota — that do not impose a legal limit on abortion procedures. Advocates for abortion rights say the absence of legal consequences after fetal liability doesn’t mean doctors will try to terminate full-term, healthy pregnancies.
In fact, access to late term procedures is limited, costly and medically complex — typically done only when a woman’s life is threatened or the fetus isn’t expected to survive. Many Democrats say they want to pass legislation that would codify the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which protects abortion rights up until viability.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said he lost the 2020 election on a ‘technicality’ because judges determined he lacked standing in election lawsuits.
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump lost the 2020 election after Biden won 306 electoral votes, compared to Trump’s 232 electoral votes.
After losing the 2020 election, Trump and his allies filed more than 60 lawsuits to challenge the outcome of the election — the overwhelming majority of which were dismissed or dropped. Many of the cases were dismissed because the plaintiffs in the cases could not prove a strong enough connection to the action they were challenging. Not having “standing” is a common and legally justifiable reason for a case to be dismissed.
TRUMP CLAIM: The Biden administration left $85 billion worth of ‘brand new beautiful military equipment behind’ in Afghanistan that was seized by the Taliban.
FACT-CHECK: False
This is not accurate, as $83 billion is an estimate of the entire amount spent by the US in security assistance in Afghanistan since 2001.
Still, the Defense Department’s Inspector General estimates $7.12 billion worth of U.S.-funded equipment was seized by the Taliban when the U.S. withdrew. According to the government watchdog, that amount includes 78 aircraft, some 9,500 air-to-ground munitions, 40,000 vehicles, 300,000 weapons and nearly all night-vision, surveillance, communications and biometric equipment provided to Afghanistan forces.
HARRIS CLAIM: ‘Trump took out a full page ad calling for their execution’
FACT-CHECK: True
Not long after the Central Park Five were arrested, Trump placed full-page ads in New York newspapers urging New York to bring back the death penalty. “These muggers and murderers” should be “forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes,” said the ad, above Trump’s signature.
-PolitiFact’s Aaron Sharockman
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump exchanged love letters with Kim Jong Un
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump did exchange letters with Kim Jong Un in August 2018 after the two leaders held a summit together in Singapore in June 2018. Trump tweeted thanking the North Korean leader “for your nice letter – I look forward to seeing you soon.” The White House at the time said Trump sent a reply to the North Korean leader, but the White House did not provide details about what was in Kim Jong Un’s letter or what was in Trump’s reply.
In August 2019, Trump said he received a “very beautiful letter” from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un when speaking to reporters.
In September 2018, Trump told a crowd at a campaign rally that there was once tough talk between the two leaders, “and then we fell in love.”
“And then we fell in love, okay? No, really – he wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters,” Trump said at the rally. Trump did often speak favorably of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during and after his presidency.
HARRIS CLAIM: Biden-Harris made historic investments in clean energy
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
The U.S. budget for clean energy investments (over $559 billion as of August 2023) is the largest in the world, according to the World Economic Forum. About a third of that investment is going toward low-carbon electricity projects, and about a quarter is aimed at developing low-carbon, efficient transportation, according to WEF. In the first quarter of 2024, the U.S. “continued its record-setting growth” with a new high of $71 billion invested in clean energy and transportation, according to Clean Investment Monitor.
At the same time, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in March that the U.S. is now producing more crude oil than any country ever has — and has been for the past six years in a row. In December 2023 the U.S. reached a new monthly record high of more than 13.3 million barrels per day, according to the EIA.
The Harris-Walz campaign told ABC News that the trillion-dollar amount cited by the vice president is based on the total spending of the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In a statement, they told us “Vice President Harris was proud to cast the tie-breaking vote on the largest ever investment to address the climate crisis and under the Biden-Harris Administration, America is more energy secure than ever before with the highest domestic energy production on record.”
Even if you take the lowest estimate for federal spending under the IRA, 780-800 billion dollars, adding the funds allocated in the CHIPS and BIL laws does exceed the $1 trillion figures that Harris has cited in her campaign speeches. All three laws include provisions that address climate change.
(PHILADELPHIA) — During the presidential debate Tuesday night, former President Donald Trump doubled down on the false claim that migrants from Haiti are stealing and eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio.
“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there,” Trump said.
These baseless rumors have spread widely online in recent days — amplified by right-wing politicians, including vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance — after a series of social media posts have gone viral claiming Haitian migrants were abducting people’s pets in order to eat them.
A spokesperson for the city of Springfield told ABC News these claims are false, and that there have been “no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals in the immigrant community.”
“Additionally, there have been no verified instances of immigrants engaging in illegal activities such as squatting or littering in front of residents’ homes. Furthermore, no reports have been made regarding members of the immigrant community deliberately disrupting traffic,” the spokesperson added.
According to the Springfield News-Sun, the Springfield Police Department has not received any reports of pets being stolen and eaten. The city even created a webpage debunking some of the claims.
Migrants have been drawn to the region because of low cost of living and work opportunities, the city says on its site. The city estimates there are around 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants living in the county, and that the rapid rise in population has strained housing, health care, and school resources. But the city also says that the migrants are in the country legally and that many are recipients of Temporary Protected Status from the federal government.
The false claim that immigrants are targeting people’s pets stemmed from a social media posting originally from a Springfield Facebook group that went viral, where the poster wrote that their neighbor’s daughter’s friend had lost her cat. The poster went on to make an unsubstantiated claim of Haitians allegedly taking the cat for food.
The post was picked up by people on social media, including rightwing activist Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA and Elon Musk.
One of the most prominent images circulating online, which depicts a man holding a dead goose, was taken two months ago not in Springfield, but in Columbus, Ohio. The resident who took the photo told ABC News he was surprised to see his image used to “push false narratives.”
Prominent Republicans have boosted this falsehood on social media. An AI-generated image, which showed Trump holding cats and ducks, was shared by the House Judiciary GOP account on X.
Vance, in particular, has magnified the debunked claim.
In a post on X, Vance published a video of himself at a July Senate Banking Committee hearing, reading a letter from Springfield City Manager Bryan Heck about the city’s challenges in keeping up with housing for the growing Haitian immigrant population.
In the post, Vance pushed the false claim that Haitian immigrants are kidnapping and eating people’s pets in Springfield.
“Months ago, I raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio,” Vance wrote on X. “Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country. Where is our border czar?” he asked, a term that Republicans have attempted to tag Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris with, although she has denied holding that role.
