(WASHINGTON) — The White House on Wednesday declined to rule out a presidential commutation for Hunter Biden following his conviction earlier this week on federal gun charges.
When asked specifically by a reporter on Air Force One as President Joe Biden traveled to the G7 summit in Italy — about whether a commutation of Hunter Biden’s eventual sentence was on the table — White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said she hadn’t spoken to the president about the matter since Tuesday’s verdict.
“As we all know, the sentencing hasn’t even been scheduled yet,” Jean-Pierre said. “I don’t have anything beyond what the president said,” she answered, referring to his comment to ABC “World News Tonight” anchor David Muir in an interview last week when he ruled out a pardon. “He’s been very clear about this.”
“He was asked about a pardon, he was asked about the trial specifically and he answered it very clearly, very forthright,” Jean-Pierre said.
“You have his words … I just don’t have anything beyond [that],” she added.
She repeatedly referred reporters to the statement President Biden made right after the verdict, in which he said, “I am the President, but I am also a Dad. Jill and I love our son, and we are so proud of the man he is today.”
“He’s very clear, very clear. You know, he loves his son. And he and the first lady love their son and they support their son. I just don’t have anything … beyond that,” Jean-Pierre added.
While a pardon is an executive forgiveness of a crime, a commutation is an executive lowering of a sentence or punishment.
Last September, Jean-Pierre answered more directly when confronted with a similar question.
Asked by a reporter if Biden would “pardon or commute his son” if he were convicted, she responded that she had answered that question before, “and I was very clear, and I said no.”
(WASHINGTON) — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Texas Civil Rights Project and other civil rights organizations have filed a federal complaint challenging a recent executive order from President Joe Biden, which limits access to asylum.
On Tuesday, June 4, Biden issued a proclamation that restricts access to asylum for migrants who cross into the United States in between ports of entry. Under a new interim rule, the administration can bar asylum access when migrant encounters at the border reach a seven-day average of 2,500 or more. The rule is lifted two weeks after encounters drop to less than 1,500 for a week straight.
Two Texas-based civil rights organizations, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), are listed as plaintiffs in the complaint. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, among others, are listed as defendants.
Under current immigration law, migrants who reach U.S. soil “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” are eligible to apply for asylum. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who will be leading this lawsuit, claims, in part, that the executive action violates a migrant’s right to seek asylum.
“This ban egregiously flouts the nation’s asylum laws. An asylum ban is flatly illegal, just as it was when the Trump administration tried it,” Gelernt told ABC News in a statement. “This law will not deter desperate migrants from seeking protection here and will just put lives at risk.”
Gelernt said the Biden administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act, in part, because it did not go through the procedural requirement of giving the public a chance to comment before the rule took effect.
“President Biden’s recent executive order flies in the face of our entire asylum system and has no cognizable basis to support it. By doing this, the president has managed to further penalize vulnerable individuals and families seeking protection and violated our laws. We are taking legal action to demonstrate that this flagrant disregard for human safety is illegal, unsustainable, and must be stopped. Asylum is not a loophole but rather a life-saving measure. Access to asylum is a human and legally protected right in the United States,” said Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center.
ABC has reached out to DHS and the White House for comment about the complaint.
Senior officials told reporters on Wednesday that while the rule is in place, migrants will be considered ineligible for asylum except for “exceptionally compelling circumstances” like facing a medical emergency or imminent threat to their safety if they’re denied entry. The proclamation also sets a higher standard for migrants to ensure they’re eligible for admission into the U.S.
Immigration officials would be able to allow a migrant into the country if they presented a “reasonable probability” of persecution or torture, higher than the current “reasonable possibility” standard. The rule includes an exception for unaccompanied minors, leading some advocates to worry it will incentivize migrants to send their children to make the dangerous journey into the United States alone.
Gelernt said he plans to add individual plaintiffs as his team finds migrants who may have been subjected to the rule. The complaint does not immediately request a temporary restraining order to pause the rule while court challenge plays out, but the ACLU continues to consider doing so, he said.
On Friday, administration officials said the number of migrants being processed for expedited removal had more than doubled since the proclamation went into effect.
On Sunday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz the new rule would push migrants to opt for legal ways of seeking asylum, like making an appointment through the CBP One app.
“Our intent is to really change the risk calculus of individuals before they leave their countries of origin and incentivize them to use lawful pathways that we have made available to them and keep them out of the hands of exploitative smugglers,” he said.
He also pushed back on the ACLU’s claim that the policy “will put thousands of people at risk.”
“I respectfully disagree with the ACLU. I anticipate they will sue us. We stand by the legality of what we have done. We stand by the value proposition,” Mayorkas said.
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans on Wednesday afternoon passed a resolution to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over audio of President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur on his handling of classified documents.
The final vote was 216 to 207.
Earlier Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson projected optimism it would get the votes despite uncertainty given the party’s razor-thin majority.
“I do think the contempt of Merrick Garland will pass on the floor, and we’re anxious to have that happen,” Johnson said at his weekly news conference alongside GOP leadership.
MORE: Biden asserts executive privilege over audio of interview with special counsel Hur The speaker said Garland’s defiance of a subpoena for the audio is a “problem under Article I” and that lawmakers must “defend” the Constitution and the authority of Congress to conduct oversight.
“The attorney general doesn’t get to decide whether he hides the tape,” Johnson said.
Two House committees — Oversight and Judiciary — voted along party-lines last month to advance the report recommending that Garland be held in contempt.
The resolution passed on Wednesday directs the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for possible criminal prosecution.
While the Department of Justice has made a transcript of Hur’s interview with Biden available to the GOP-led committees, House Republicans argue the audio tapes are necessary to their stalled impeachment investigation into the president.
Before the Judiciary committee last week, Garland continued to defend his decision to not turn over audio tapes of the interview, over which President Biden assert executive privilege.
The attorney general said lawmakers don’t have a legitimate purpose for seeking the tape, and expressed concern that the sensitive information could harm the integrity of future investigations.
“I will not be intimidated. And the Justice Department will not be intimidated. We will continue to do our jobs free from political influence. And we will not back down from defending our democracy,” Garland said at the hearing.
Democrats have also come to Garland’s defense, describing the GOP push to hold him in contempt a politically-motivated endeavor.
“This isn’t really about a policy disagreement with the DOJ, this is about feeding the MAGA base after 18 months of investigations that have produced failure after failure,” Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said in testimony Tuesday before the House Rules Committee.
In the past, Congress has held Cabinet officials in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a House subpoena, including Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in 2019 and then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012.
Congress held Peter Navarro, a former top trade adviser in the Trump administration, in contempt of Congress in 2022 for defying records and testimony to the now defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Navarro was recently sentenced to four months behind bars.
Steve Bannon, a Trump ally who was also held in contempt of Congress in 2022 for not complying with the Jan. 6 select committee, has been ordered to report to jail on July 1.
(WASHINGTON) — Marianne Williamson, an author and speaker who was President Joe Biden’s final Democratic opponent, said earlier this week that she is no longer a candidate for the party’s nomination now that 2024 presidential primaries have ended.
The presidential primary cycle concluded on Saturday with voters from Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands casting some of the last ballots. Williamson was on the ballot in most states and territories this election cycle, notwithstanding a brief suspension of her candidacy in February before shortly jumping back into the race.
She did not earn any Democratic delegates, but acted as an alternative for voters opposed to Biden in some places where “uncommitted” or write-in options were not available.
“Now that the primaries are complete, I’m no longer a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. Deep thanks to all my donors, volunteers and supporters who stood for the radically humanitarian agenda that was the core of my campaign,” Williamson wrote in a post on X on Tuesday.
In March, Williamson told ABC News that she was back in the race with a focus not on defeating Biden electorally, but on bringing progressive ideas and discussions about them to the campaign trail.
“We articulated an analysis of our history as well as a regenerative path forward that I believe in my heart is the most powerful antidote to authoritarianism and national decline. I hope our message will continue to resonate and impact our political conversation for many years to come. With deep appreciation to all,” she wrote in the post on Tuesday.
Williamson — who also ran for president in 2020 — was the first Democrat to enter the 2024 presidential cycle. She announced her bid at Union Station in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 26, 2023. Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips and progressive commentator Cenk Uygur were also Biden challengers in the primary race this cycle, but suspended their bids several months ago.
Williamson’s signature 2024 proposals were not unlike the platforms she ran on in 2020: an overhauled economic system with the institution of an economic Bill of Rights, the creation of a Department of Peace, a Department of Children and Youth and a focus on housing, drug and crime policy reform, among other platforms.
“The status quo, ladies and gentlemen and everyone else, will not disrupt itself,” Williamson said as she announced her candidacy. “It is our job to create a vision of justice and love that is so powerful that it will override the forces of hatred and injustice and fear.”
She was distinct in the 2024 cycle in that she’d emerged as a promising alternative for some Democrats disillusioned with Biden’s stance on the Israel-Hamas war, especially in places where an “uncommitted” option wasn’t available on the ballot — considered a protest vote against Biden, who hasn’t achieved a cease-fire in Gaza. In Arizona, for example, there was a concerted push for voters to select Williamson in the absence of a more direct cease-fire ballot option.
Williamson suspended her campaign on Feb. 7 following a string of significant primary losses in early states. She said she didn’t have the resources to continue — however, she wasn’t yet ready to abandon her candidacy. Now, she said she’ll “continue in every way possible” to advocate for Americans who she was running for.
“Having been on the ground for the last year and a half talking to voters, I have seen what people go through; our political elites and talking heads are in a bubble and it shows. I will continue in every way possible to be a voice for Americans whose hardships are too little addressed in this country, the adequate response to which remains the key to our winning in November,” Williamson said in a statement to ABC News.
“The primary is over, but what is not over is the need for a more fair economy — for universal healthcare, a guaranteed living wage, an Economic Bill of Rights, a US Department of Peace, subsidized child care, and a society where humans can more easily thrive,” she said.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will sign a bilateral security agreement at the G7 summit Thursday that will pledge long-term defense and security cooperation.
“We want to demonstrate that the U.S. supports the people of Ukraine, that we stand with them, and that we’ll continue to help address their security needs, not just tomorrow but out into the future,” national security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters aboard Air Force on his way to the G7 summit site of Bari, Italy. “We’ll be sending Russia a signal of our resolve.”
A U.S. official tells me this is an “executive agreement,” which means a future president could withdraw from it.
The possibility of a second Donald Trump presidency looms large over the summit — Trump has not made clear whether he would continue to support Ukraine and has said he’d “encourage” Russia to attack NATO allies who don’t contribute enough towards defense spending.
The official told me negotiations on this bilateral agreement started last fall, but the U.S. was not able to complete negotiations while waiting for Congress to pass the supplemental funding for Ukraine. Once that was passed, negotiations were accelerated.
The agreement states that the U.S. intends to work with Congress over the coming months to find a path to sustainable resources for Ukraine.
The agreement does not include any commitment to use U.S. forces to defend Ukraine. It will outline a vision of how the U.S. and its allies will work with Ukraine to strengthen its defenses and deter future aggression from Russia.
The pledge will be similar to bilateral agreements that Ukraine has already signed with more than a dozen other countries.
“If Vladimir Putin thinks he can outlast the coalition supporting Ukraine, he’s wrong,” Sullivan added. “He cannot just wait us out.”
Zelenskyy and Biden will meet Thursday on the sidelines of the G7 and will hold a joint news conference.
President Joe Biden participates in a bilateral meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine during the G7 Summit, Sunday, May 21, 2023, at the Grand Prince Hotel in Hiroshima, Japan. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s key priority at the G7 summit in Italy this week is to solidify an agreement that could provide some $50 billion to Ukraine using profits from frozen Russian assets, according to a source familiar with the matter.
The U.S. argues this is a solution to relieve Ukraine’s desperate battlefield situation using Russian funds instead of taxpayer dollars. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky will attend the summit to personally drive home the urgency.
Biden is also expected to meet with Zelensky this week — their second meeting in a week after their sit down in Paris.
Yet, the seven member countries have not reached a consensus. They will be negotiating the details during the summit, aiming to announce the agreement in the G7 communique at the end of the summit this week, the source added.
This plan to finance Ukraine would send a powerful message to Russia’s Vladimir Putin that he will not outlast the U.S. and its allies’ support for Ukraine, regardless of how elections in their countries unfold, according to the source.
But the G7 nations have to hammer out tricky details, including how disbursement would work and what the repayment assurances would be, the source said. European countries also have differing views on utilizing these profits, with some preferring direct spending on weapons. There are also complicated legal issues and concerns about who would back the loan.
Israel/Hamas war
This is the first G7 summit since the Hamas Oct. 7 attack on Israel. While there have been divisions among member countries over the war, the countries have now unified around President Biden’s plan for a cease-fire. Earlier this month, G7 leaders released a joint statement formally endorsing Biden’s plan and calling on Hamas to accept it.
China
Another key area of discussion among leaders is countering China’s trade practices and overcapacity. According to the source, the G7 nations agree that China’s excess industrial capacity poses a global problem.
The fear is that a flood of heavily subsidized products from China — including steel, machinery, solar products, electric vehicles, and batters — would decimate those industries in the U.S. and other countries. Last month, President Biden significantly increased tariffs on Chinese imports in strategic sectors, while leaving in place tariffs on more than $300 billion worth of Chinese goods that Trump had imposed.
Pope Francis, AI
Pope Francis will attend the summit to speak about artificial intelligence, another top priority at the G7. Francis has called for an international treaty to ensure AI is developed and used ethically.
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans on Wednesday plan to hold a full chamber vote on holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over audio of President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur on his handling of classified documents.
The Rules Committee met Tuesday afternoon to mark up the contempt resolution and advanced the measure in a 9-4 vote.
According to the latest schedule from Majority Leader Steve Scalise, the House will be holding the Garland contempt vote on Wednesday.
The vote had been in limbo since two House committees — Oversight and Judiciary — voted along party-lines last month to advance a report recommending that Garland be held in contempt.
But it is not clear if Republicans have enough support to clear the measure with their razor-thin majority. Regardless, GOP leadership is plowing ahead this week with a vote in which House Speaker Mike Johnson can afford only two defections if all members are voting and present.
Republicans met for a conference meeting on Wednesday morning to discuss the issue.
“We are going to talk about it right now. It is real important we get it done,” Scalise said.
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, when asked if he was confident a Garland contempt vote would pass, said, “We are going to have a vote today. That’s for sure.”
Speaker Johnson, leaving the Capitol on Tuesday evening, told reporters he “thinks” it will pass.
While the Department of Justice has made a transcript of Hur’s interview with Biden available to the GOP-led committees, House Republicans argue the audio tapes are necessary to their investigation into the president.
“The purpose of getting the audio tapes of the Biden interview is because the committees have to do their legislation work. They use the audio to evaluate the work and the accuracy of the special counsel. We have the transcript; there should be no surprises here,” Johnson said at a news conference last month.
Before the Judiciary committee last week, Garland continued to defend his decision to not turn over audio tapes of the interview, over which President Biden assert executive privilege.
“I will not be intimidated. And the Justice Department will not be intimidated. We will continue to do our jobs free from political influence. And we will not back down from defending our democracy,” Garland said at the hearing.
The resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for possible criminal prosecution.
In the past, Congress has held Cabinet officials in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a House subpoena, including Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in 2019 and then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012.
Congress held Peter Navarro, a former top trade adviser in the Trump administration, in contempt of Congress in 2022 for defying records and testimony to the now defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Navarro was recently sentenced to four months behind bars.
Steve Bannon, a Trump ally who was also held in contempt of Congress in 2022 for not complying with the Jan. 6 select committee, has been ordered to report to jail on July 1.
First lady Jill Biden, Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, joined by his wife Melissa Cohen Biden, leave the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building on June 11, 2024 in Wilmington, Del. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Hunter Biden’s conviction Tuesday on three felony charges marks a historic moment — the first time a sitting president’s child has been found guilty of felonies. The verdict’s impact on the presidential race, however, may not match that moment.
Operatives in both parties predicted that the conviction would do little to move the needle in an election featuring two universally known candidates whose own poll numbers have refused to budge more than a few points even in light of historic developments surrounding President Joe Biden and Donald Trump themselves — including the former president’s own felony conviction last month.
“Considering how little the Trump verdict seemed to move the needle, I’m not sure Hunter’s will do anything either,” GOP pollster Robert Blizzard said of Hunter Biden’s conviction on three charges related to the purchase of a firearm while he was allegedly addicted to crack cocaine.
Hunter Biden, the president’s only living son, has been a target of Republican politics for years, with the GOP insisting he looped his father into years of his business dealings — claims the White House has repeatedly denied.
Joe Biden and Democrats, for their part, have sought to cast Republican talking points as conspiracy theories while the administration has emphasized the president’s support for his son and his recovery from addiction.
The messaging on each side is not anticipated to stop anytime soon, especially in a cycle where Republicans’ claims of a “rigged” justice system are a mainstay of today’s campaign rhetoric.
However, it’s unclear how much Hunter Biden’s conviction moves the race forward rather than keeps it where it is.
“I don’t think the verdict will materially impact the race,” said Republican strategist Rob Stutzman. “It does mute GOP claims that the Biden DOJ is weaponized against Trump and MAGA, but the election isn’t turning on that question.”
To be certain, Republicans still seized on the verdict as a bad look for the president that could impede his messaging.
Dave Carney, a veteran GOP strategist recently tapped to lead a new pro-Trump super PAC, said the ruling could have “some” impact on the race but also cut into new attacks from the Biden campaign against Trump’s convictions.
“It takes the ‘convicted felon’ issue off the table for Biden. Their toolbox is looking bleaker,” he said, referencing a newly common phrase in statements from the president’s camp.
Others touted vindication on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop, a device introduced into evidence that was allegedly left with a Wilmington, Delaware, computer repairman. Republicans had claimed the computer included personal details, while Democrats dismissed that messaging as a conspiracy theory — an assertion that GOP strategist Scott Jennings said could rub voters the wrong way after the laptop was essentially validated by being introduced as evidence.
“I do think Biden’s ability to recover is going to be based somewhat on whether people find him to be credible,” he added. “Do they think he’s telling them the truth? Do they believe it when he says things to them about himself or about Donald Trump? And now, one of the problems is they know full well he lied right to their face about this laptop.”
Democrats swatted away any claims that voters would negatively link the president to Tuesday’s verdict.
While Republicans have been railing against Hunter Biden’s business dealings for years, strategists estimated that undecided voters would not be swayed by the conviction amid concerns over other issues, including Trump’s own legal hurdles.
“I don’t think Hunter Biden matters to folks much at all except for extreme Trumpers who will say ‘see!’ But their candidate got convicted, not one of his kids. That’s a voting issue. The Trump verdict I think could force some lean conservative people to stay home. No poll can measure that. No one is staying home because of Hunter,” said Democratic strategist Peter Giangreco, who worked on former President Barack Obama’s campaigns.
Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson said “voters know that there’s only one candidate for president who thinks he’s above the law and is convicted of 34 felonies for fraud.”
Hunter Biden’s conviction also echoes struggles of millions of families across the country who have a loved one battling addiction, with Democrats suggesting the verdict may be both difficult to attack on the trail and relatable to everyday Americans.
“On one hand, it reminds us that President Biden’s lived experience is more like the majority of Americans than Trump’s. Millions of American families deal with addiction, the impact of addiction and the journey of recovery,” said Democratic strategist Karen Finney, a veteran of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Biden fundraiser John Morgan said “only a person with no heart would not be sympathetic” to the story of addiction and recovery.
“And [Biden] isn’t saying the trial is rigged. The contrast between the two trials will be a huge boost for the president,” Morgan added.
Joe Biden for his part largely sought to avoid any political commentary on the verdict, releasing a personal statement only from the White House and not from his campaign.
“As I said last week, I am the President, but I am also a Dad. Jill and I love our son, and we are so proud of the man he is today. So many families who have had loved ones battle addiction understand the feeling of pride seeing someone you love come out the other side and be so strong and resilient in recovery. As I also said last week, I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal,” the president said in a statement.
(WASHINGTON) — For years, Hala Rharrit was a career veteran diplomat who took pride talking about American values such as human rights and freedom of the press.
Now, she’s the first U.S. diplomat to resign her post in protest of Biden administration policies toward Israel and the war in Gaza.
In an interview with ABC News this week, Rharrit said she believes the steady stream of U.S. bombs and other weapons sent to Israel with few conditions is putting America’s national security at risk as the Arab world grows more volatile — and hostile to U.S. interests — than ever.
“None of this is helping Israel,” Rharrit said of Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza.
And the policy of shipping military aid with few conditions to Israel is “fundamentally bad for America,” she added.
The idea of diplomats and career government workers quitting their posts isn’t new. Resignations also occurred in the George W. Bush administration during the Iraq War as officials questioned the rationale for the U.S. invasion and deaths of American service members.
Those protest resignations are back on the rise this spring as Rharrit has been joined by nearly a dozen government workers in recent months who have abruptly resigned in protest of Biden administration policies toward Israel and the Gaza conflict.
Others to leave their federal government jobs include Josh Paul and Stacy Gilbert — both longtime officials at the State Department who had direct roles in overseeing U.S. policy toward Israel — and U.S. Army Maj. Harrison Mann, an executive officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Middle East-Africa Regional Center.
The State Department declined to discuss personnel issues, but said officials have sought feedback from its employees throughout the war.
“I can say broadly that our staff have many ways to provide feedback and recommendations, both through the dissent channel and through more routine mechanisms including cables, emails, meetings, and spot reports,” a State Department spokesperson wrote in a statement.
“Since October 7, the Department has held multiple listening sessions specifically designed to give policy feedback related to the conflict. The Secretary, Deputy Secretaries, and Undersecretaries have participated in these sessions,” the statement added.
From the Biden administration’s standpoint, the steady flow of ammunition to Israel and statements of “ironclad” support were necessary to deter Iran and its proxies in the region, as well as terror groups like Hamas.
Officials also note that Hamas is to blame for the startling civilian death toll by hiding in encampments and in hospitals and schools. Hamas could lessen hostilities, they say, by releasing the remaining hostages and surrendering to Israel, even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the notion of a permanent cease-fire.
U.S. advisers close to Biden also insist they haven’t given Israel a pass — repeatedly calling out Israel for not doing enough to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza and publicly demanded that Israel do more to protect civilians, including thousands who has sought shelter in the southern Gazan city of Rafah.
Meanwhile, Israel also has accused Hamas of operating from civilian sites and insisted Israel won’t be safe until every Hamas fighter is eradicated.
For Rharrit, part of her job at the State Department immediately following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel was to report back to Washington how Arab audiences viewed the conflict. As an Arab-language spokesperson based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, Rharrit would scour local media outlets and track popular personalities on social media reporting on the war.
What Arab audiences watched, she said, was mostly traumatized images of children being killed or severely wounded in Israel’s bombing campaign. Young people, freshly orphaned, were everywhere, too — vowing revenge against Israel and the U.S. for supplying the weapons. There were also images of aid trucks backed up along the border juxtaposed with infants dying of malnutrition.
At the same time, Rharrit said she was given talking points to deliver to those Arab outlets — carefully crafted phrases approved from State Department headquarters in Washington.
“Israel has a right to defend itself” and “the U.S. stands with Israel” were the oft-repeated phrases that omitted any mention of the heavy death toll of civilians, journalists and aid workers inside Gaza.
Rharrit said she pushed back, telling higher-ups the talking points were “disconnected” from what Arabs were seeing on their phones. The statements also were at odds with Biden administration statements on other conflicts like Ukraine that frequently called out attacks on civilians, offered condolences to communities and called for the protection of journalists, she said.
Then in January, her headquarters in Washington asked her to stop filing reports because they were no longer needed, she said.
When asked about the details, the State Department said reporting written by “the Dubai Regional Media Hub’s reporting after the October 7 attacks was read at the highest levels of the Department.”
From Rharrit’s viewpoint, senior officials at the State Department were willfully choosing to ignore how the nearly unconditional flow of offensive weapons to Israel was damaging support for U.S. policies overseas and its standing on the international stage.
“We [the U.S.], in the Arab world were seen as complicit because we were surging munitions” to Israel, said Rharrit, who resigned April 24.
In May, Biden took the unprecedented step of withholding a single shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel — devastating, non-precision weapons he said Israel could use to kill civilians — in a bid to urge restraint in Rafah. The move was meant with swift and angry pushback from Republican lawmakers who said he had no right to withhold an aid package Congress had approved.
Other military aid continues to flow to Israel, as it has for decades, including both offensive and defensive weapons.
A recent report by the State Department concluded that it was “reasonable to assess” that U.S. weapons have been used by Israel in a way that is “inconsistent” with Israel’s obligation under international law. At the same time, the report concluded the U.S. didn’t have “complete information” and would not withhold weapons to Israel.
Hamas killed some 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and more than 240 were kidnapped in the Oct. 7 attack that triggered the war, according to Israeli officials.
The Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health estimates more than 37,000 people have been killed in the conflict, although those numbers could not be independently verified.
Israel has denied that it has violated international humanitarian laws and said it has the right to eliminate the same Hamas fighters that attacked civilians on Oct. 7.
Rharrit said she believes more staff resignations are possible. Still, she acknowledges many of her former colleagues are hoping the war will end before that happens and are waiting it out.
Either way, Rharrit said she believes there is a heightened risk for Americans working abroad, including U.S. service members stationed in the Middle East and diplomatic staff, because, she said, the U.S. is now inextricably bound to this war.
While none has been attacked so far, “the administration is willfully putting a target on our backs,” she said.
(WASHINGTON) — For the second time in as many years, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) has defeated a fierce primary challenge in South Carolina’s 1st congressional district.
With 27% of the vote reporting as of 8:40 p.m ET., the Associated Press projects Mace will win South Carolina’s first district with an outright majority of more than 57%.
During a speech in the Charleston area, Mace emphatically thanked Trump for his support in this race while vaguely referring to her controversial reputation.
“President Trump, South Carolina will have your back in November. Thank you all for standing by me and sticking with me, and many of you for sticking up for me,” Mace said during her celebration speech.
The result is a stunning victory for the sophomore representative, whose lead opponent, former state director of labor, licensing and regulation Catherine Templeton, outraised her in 2024 and received an endorsement and financial support from former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-C.A.). McCarthy-linked group Majority Committee PAC donated $10,000 to Templeton’s run, per FEC filings.
Mace’s second campaign for reelection put on display the shifting allegiances of the fractious modern GOP. Once a vocal critic of Trump, Mace had former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s endorsement in 2022 and received financial contributions from PACs linked to top GOP leaders as she faced a primary opponent endorsed by the former president.
Since then, the roles have reversed: Trump enthusiastically backed Mace after she endorsed him in the state’s presidential primary over Haley, and McCarthy has sought vengeance for Mace’s vote to oust him from the speakership.
Trump and Mace’s detente would have been nearly unthinkable two years ago.
One day after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Mace said Trump’s “entire legacy” was “wiped out” by the siege. Later, during the 2022 midterms, Trump called Mace “terrible” and a letdown.
“Frankly, she is despised by almost everyone, and who needs that in Congress, or in the Republican Party?” Trump said in a statement on his social media while endorsing Arrington.
