Politics

(RIO GRANDE CITY, TX) — Starr County, Texas, voted predominantly Republican this month — for the first time in 100 years.

Home to some 75,000 residents across about 1,200 square miles, it has a relatively small footprint, in a state where everything is glorified for its bigness.

But it’s been making an outsized impression in national politics. Even after its historic flip from blue to red, a century in the making, it’s continued to garner headlines.

Last week, Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham offered up 1,402 acres of Starr County to facilitate President-elect Donald Trump’s mass deportation plans.

In a letter to Trump dated Nov. 19, Buckingham said she’s offering the land, located along the border of Mexico, “to be used to construct deportation facilities.”

She has also proposed alternative uses for it, including as a site for detention centers.

“Now it’s essentially farmland, so it’s flat, it’s easy to build on. We can very easily put a detention center on there — a holding place as we get these criminals out of our country,” Buckingham said in a recent interview with Fox News.

The land, which Buckingham declared property of the state in 2023, adds to another parcel previously owned by the Texas General Land Office, bringing the southern border acreage that it controls in Starr County up to 4,000.

ABC News’ Mireya Villarreal visited Starr County to ask residents what issues and values most influenced them to vote for Republican candidates this year, instead of upholding their century-long blue streak.

“The economy is just driving, I think, everybody crazy,” said Becky Garza, the owner of Texas Cafe in Rio Grande City, the largest city in Starr County.

She explained that she used to complain about buying a box of eggs for $10, and now they’re $20.

“If things don’t get better, I might have to either cut staff, cut hours, or I’m going to start with cutting hours and then from there work it, maybe cut down, maybe cut the menu, you know, to keep the place open, you know, because I don’t want to lose my my customers,” Garza said.

And she doesn’t think she’s the only one who’s making those kinds of hard decisions, she told ABC News.

Jaime Escobar, the mayor of neighboring Roma, another city of Starr County, agrees. He suggested that residents are more influenced by the local economy than what’s being said in Washington, D.C.

“We no longer want to be considered just a poor community because we’re rich culturally,” he told ABC News. “We’re proud of our Mexican-American heritage, but we don’t — no longer want to be dependent just on the government.”

But with D.C. being invited into their backyard, it’s bound to bring the topic of migration and deportation to the forefront — even for those who may not have prioritized the issue during the election cycle.

Asked about how people might respond to a detention facility in nearby Starr County, Escobar said, “People don’t want families to be torn apart. That’s the last thing we want.”

“But at the same time,” he added, “we hope that Trump and his administration do the right thing and focus on the criminal element first, and then see how in the meantime, we’ll see how the policies can be implemented in a better way.”

Buckingham, on the other hand, believes that “folks who live down on the border feel really abandoned by those open border policies.”

She told ABC News, “They feel like it’s directly harming their communities, both their safety and their prosperity.”

In the same interview this week with ABC News, Buckingham also said that she would “absolutely” offer up even more of Texas, the way that she did Starr County.

“I have 13 million acres. If any of them can be of help in this process, we’re happy to have that discussion,” Buckingham said.

Trump has said he would carry out his mass deportation plans — a top campaign promise — by declaring a national emergency and using “military assets” to deport migrants currently living in the U.S. without legal permission.

He backed up his commitment with the choice of several immigration hard-liners to join his administration, including South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for secretary of homeland security and former director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Tom Homan as “border czar.” Both picks require Senate confirmation.

But with an estimated 11 million people presumed to be living in the U.S. without legal immigration status, the promises have raised questions of both feasibility and cost.

Removing them could cost billions of dollars per year, according to estimates from the American Immigration Council.

And while Republican-friendly areas of Texas might feel compelled to support the effort, other southern border states, like Arizona and California, have already expressed their disinterest.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs told ABC News Live last week that she would not use state police or the National Guard to help with mass deportation.

“We will not be participating in misguided efforts that harm our communities,” she said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump and his allies have vowed to radically shift American policy from Day 1.

From mass deportations to eliminating the Department of Education, Trump’s policies could impact millions of people and communities across the country. However, experts say there is a big obstacle that will make it harder — if not impossible — for the incoming administration to implement these plans: States and municipalities.

Alison LaCroix, professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, told ABC News that the power to regulate and implement key laws lies strictly within the states and many local leaders have already been working to prepare for a possible future Trump administration.

“The states have a lot of levers in the constitutional system, legal system and other systems,” she said. “This usually comes as a lot of shock to people who don’t know how much power they wield but we’re going to soon find out how valuable they are.”

Other experts who have focused on some of the biggest sectors targeted by Trump, such as public health and immigration, agreed but said they are likely gearing up for a legal and policy fight that could last a long time.

Immigration
For example, Trump and his allies have been very open about their proposals to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

Trump has said he aims to remove at least 1 million immigrants living in the country illegally from the U.S. as soon as possible.

Elora Mukherjee, the director of Columbia Law School’s immigration clinic, told ABC News that states can’t outright act as immigration enforcement for the federal government without an agreement.

“It is the principle that the federal government cannot order local law enforcement to enact federal priorities,” she said.

Democratic governors like Gavin Newsom of California and JB Pritzker of Illinois have vowed not to assist Trump with any mass deportation plan, and Mukherjee said their claims are not empty words.

She said states already showed their power during the first Trump administration by blocking Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from entering courthouses for potential raids and denying the agency detainers that would have kept jailed immigrants in custody longer without an arraignment.

She added that any attempts by the Republican-controlled Congress to change immigration and deportation laws to take away rights from the states will take some time and likely be met with resistance even among Republican members who think it is too extreme.

“The Trump administration will issue many executive orders, but a large number that will be illegal and unconstitutional,” Mukherjee added.

At the same time, Mukherjee said that conservative states and municipalities may bolster anti-immigrant policies and make it harder for migrants and asylum seekers to gain a path to citizenship.

Sixty counties and police districts, many of them in Florida, have entered into 287(g) agreements with ICE, in which local law enforcement can conduct immigration policies on behalf of the federal government such as executing warrants and detaining undocumented immigrants, according to Mukherjee.

Florida also passed SB 1718 last year which cracks down on undocumented immigration with several provisions, including making it illegal to transport undocumented immigrants and requiring hospitals to ask patients for their immigration status.

Mukherjee stressed that states cannot try to enforce their own laws in other jurisdictions due to the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg vs. Pennsylvania. That case, which overturned the conviction of a man convicted under a state law that prevented slave-catching, held that while federal law supersedes state law, states are not required to use their resources to uphold federal laws.

“It’s extremely difficult and illegal for one state to impose their laws onto another,” Mukherjee said.

Even when it comes to executive orders, Mukherjee said the laws are mostly on the side of states and municipalities.

Trump’s “border czar” choice Tom Homan has already threatened to go after states and cities that refuse to comply with the president-elect’s deportation plans, including arresting mayors.

Mukherjee said there is no legal mechanism or modern legal precedent that allows the federal government to incarcerate local leaders for not adhering to an administration’s policy.

“Sanctuary city laws are entirely allowed within the U.S. Constitution,” she said. “The 10th Amendment is extremely clear. The powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. This is a bedrock principle of U.S. constitutional law.”

Public education
State education officials are in the same boat when it comes to federal oversight, experts said.

Although Trump and other allies have made it clear that they want to eliminate or weaken the federal Department of Education, funding for schools and education programs lies mostly in the hands of state legislatures and local school boards, according to Alice O’Brien, the general counsel for the National Education Association.

“Those campaign promises in reality are much harder to achieve,” O’Brien told ABC News. “They would require federal legislation to accomplish.”

Federal oversight has little control over local school curriculum policies, she added.

O’Brien noted that much of the federal oversight on public schools lies outside of the jurisdiction of the Department of Education. For example, state school districts must adhere to laws set forth at the federal level such as non-discrimination against race and religion and disabilities.

“States and school systems can not run in any way that conflicts with the federal Constitution,” O’Brien said.

When it comes to funding, although the federal DOE does provide funding as a floor to many school districts, it is a small fraction compared to the funding that comes from city and state coffers, O’Brien explained.

Public health
“It really comes down to a state-by-state basis in terms of how much dollars are allocated to the schools,” she said. “Ultimately it really comes down to how much money the state budgets have.”

Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association and former Maryland health secretary, told ABC News that state public health offices operate under the same localized jurisdiction and thus would have more autonomy on health policies.

Trump’s pick for the head of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been a staunch promoter of anti-vaccination policies and has pushed for the end of fluoride in water supplies.

Benjamin said he is worried about the effects of having someone with no professional health experience and public dismissiveness of proven health policies, however, he remarked that states and municipalities still hold immense power in implementing policies.

Georges noted that fluoride levels in the water supply are dictated at a local level, and many counties have chosen not to implement them. Federal health agencies can make recommendations but cannot block a municipality from implementing fluoridation, he said.

“There is no fiscal penalty for not following it,” Benjamin said of federal recommendations.

The same rules govern local vaccination requirements, he added.

“[The federal government does] control vaccine mandates at the federal level, with the federal workforce, but they don’t control the bulk of childhood mandates,” Benjamin said.

He noted that the country saw the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of state-run public health systems during the two years that COVID-19 hit the nation and the rollout of the vaccines. Republican and Democratic states all instituted shelter-in-place and social distancing rules during the peak of cases, Benjamin said.

“I do think we have a wait-and-see attitude,” he said.

In the meantime, several states have taken measures to bolster their state health policies, particularly when it comes to reproductive rights, through legislative action and ballot measures.

Power in state prosecutors
One of the biggest ways that states will be able to “Trump-proof” their laws and policies is through state prosecutors and the courts, LaCroix said.

“We will see a lot of arguments in local government and what they can do,” she said.

Mukherjee said several state attorneys general were able to take Trump to court during his first administration and push back against immigration proposals such as his ban on residents from Muslim countries and deportation plans.

Mukherjee said despite the increase in Trump-backed judges in the federal courts, there is still the rule of law when it comes to immigration. For example, earlier this year, a federal judge struck down the provision in Florida’s SB 1718 that threatens felony charges for people who transport an undocumented immigrant.

U.S. District Judge Roy Altman, a Trump-appointed judge, issued an injunction against that provision stating that immigration-related enforcement was not in the state’s power.

“It will be harder this time around to win sweeping victories for immigrants and non-citizens … but federal judges across party lines reined in the worst abuses of the Trump administration the first time around,” she said.

LaCroix echoed that statement and said that partisanship can only go so far, especially when it comes to laws enshrined in the state and federal constitutions.

“Judges still have to give reasons for what they do and ‘because our party is in charge’ doesn’t hold weight,” she said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden announced Tuesday that Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a deal brokered by the U.S. “to end the devastating conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.”

“This has been the deadliest conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in decades,” Biden said in remarks from the Rose Garden.

Biden said the agreement reached will go into effect early Wednesday.

“At 4 a.m. tomorrow local time, the fighting across the Lebanese-Israeli border will end. Will end,” Biden said. “This is designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities.”

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Key U.S. trading partners are better equipped now to deal with President-elect Donald Trump’s tariff threats than they were during his first administration, according to experts.

China has spent the last several years trying to “Trump-proof” its economy, reducing its reliance on U.S. trade. Exports from China to the U.S. fell 20% to $427 billion in 2023.

“China’s been trying to Trump-proof its economy for the last few years,” said Neil Thomas, a fellow for Chinese politics at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis. “We know from Trump’s first term that tariff threats are often used as an opening salvo for diplomatic negotiations, so I expect there’s going to be a lot of behind-the-scenes diplomacy.”

Trump on Monday announced he plans to impose a 10% additional tariff on Chinese imports, as well as 25% tariff on products coming from Canada and Mexico.

American markets, so far, are mostly shrugging off Trump’s latest tariff threat with stock indexes mixed.

But the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso fell against the U.S. dollar and socks of global carmakers also fell — suggesting investors are waiting to see if Trump makes good on his proposals.

China has shifted and diversified exports to other regions, including Europe and Latin America. It has also increased investments in manufacturing in Southeast Asia, Europe, and Latin America, according to Scott Kennedy, Chinese business and economics specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The bigger concern for China is Trump’s campaign vow to slap 60% tariffs on Chinese imports. That tariff threat could still come.

Trump’s latest reason for imposing tariffs on China is the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs pushed back on Trump’s claim that China hasn’t done enough to stop the flow of illicit drugs.

“China is willing to continue to carry out anti-drug cooperation with the United States on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect,” it said. “The United States should cherish China’s goodwill and maintain the hard-won good situation of Sino-US anti-drug cooperation.”

Cooperation on fentanyl is one of the big wins from President Joe Biden’s diplomacy with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. According to one senior administration official, China has been “helpful” on curbing the flow of precursor chemicals and they’ve been abiding by their commitments.

“Trump wants to take credit for that win [on fentanyl cooperation], and he wants to get even more out of Beijing than Biden to show that his approach to diplomacy is superior,” Thomas said.

Thomas said given the fact that China is still struggling to revive its economy post-pandemic, it’s possible China could take further steps on fentanyl and impose the death penalty on a few major exporters.

Experts say Beijing will likely try to use Elon Musk and other American businesses with operations in China to try to persuade the Trump administration to moderate his policies on China.

In retaliation to the tariffs, Beijing could also revoke some of the preferential treatment that it gives Tesla.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Democrats suffered a knockout punch in this month’s elections. New Jersey’s and Virginia’s off-year gubernatorial elections in 2025 offer them their first chances to get off the mat.

Both states have become reliably blue in federal races, but President-elect Donald Trump narrowed his margins in each state, and Democrats are unable to take anything for granted as they undergo a postelection reckoning over their national brand. New Jerseyans haven’t granted one party more than eight straight years in the governor’s mansion in over five decades, and Republican Glenn Youngkin rode into Richmond just three years ago.

That makes the contests to replace term-limited Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, in New Jersey and Youngkin, who can’t run for two consecutive terms, in Virginia key barometers for Democrats’ ability to find their way out of the political wilderness ahead of the midterm elections in 2026.

“I think both these are going to be competitive races. Democrats know to take nothing for granted right now,” said Jared Leopold, a former Democratic Governors Association staffer based in Virginia. “Gubernatorial races have always been the path back for a party out of power, and 2025 is no different. So, this is going to be a huge opportunity for the Democratic Party.”

Both races are in the early stages, with candidates still throwing their hats into the ring.

New Jersey Reps. Josh Gottheimer and Mikie Sherrill, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, former state Senate President Stephen Sweeney and New Jersey Education Association President Sean Spiller are among the Democrats running to replace Murphy. Rep. Abigail Spanberger is the top Democrat running in Virginia and is widely considered a party powerhouse in the state.

Republicans are also sifting through their own candidates. Former GOP gubernatorial nominee Jack Ciattarelli, who fell short of unseating Murphy by about 3 points in 2021, is running again in New Jersey, as are other candidates who are casting themselves as more aligned with and antagonistic toward Trump’s brand. And Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears is running for the governor’s mansion with Youngkin’s endorsement.

But it’s Democrats who are on the outside looking in these days, having lost the White House and Senate this month, and eager to bounce back.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss to Trump has set off recriminations among Democrats that the party has lost touch with working-class voters and instead reinforced an elitist, out-of-touch brand that was so unpalatable that voters instead opted for a twice-impeached former president who had been convicted of 34 felonies in New York.

Warning signs loomed this month specifically in New Jersey and Virginia. Trump stunned when he became the first Republican presidential candidate in over 30 years to win racially diverse Passaic County in New Jersey. And he made inroads in northern Virginia, the suburban machine of Democrats’ statewide advantage.

Many of the leading Democrats in New Jersey and Virginia have sought to create distance with the party’s left-flank and prioritized affordability over social issues, a possibly effective strategy after voters prioritized economic issues and Trump blanketed the airwaves with ads attacking Harris over her position on transgender issues.

Now, they just have to convince voters that they’re not like the national Democratic bogeymen they’ve heard so much about.

“I think they will be talking the talk. The question is, how can they convince voters that they are walking the walk, and how can they convince voters that this is the centerpiece of their campaign?” said Micah Rasmussen, who served as press secretary for former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, a Democrat.

“If you can convince voters that you’ve gotten the message and that you need to focus not so much what you want to focus on but you want to focus on what the voters want you to focus on, that’s what it’s going to take,” he added. “I certainly think, at this point, the candidates have gotten the message.”

Democrats in both states have gotten something of a head start over their national counterparts.

Murphy’s narrower-than-expected win over Ciattarelli in 2021 alarmed Democrats who had expected to coast in New Jersey but were instead rebuffed by voters’ complaints about affordability in the high-tax state. And Youngkin’s win in a state that President Joe Biden won by 10 points just a year earlier jolted Democrats there, too.

In hindsight, both results may have foreshadowed the post-COVID-19 economic frustrations that sunk Democrats this year.

Now, candidates are putting the economy first. “Let’s make life more affordable for hardworking New Jerseyans, from health care to groceries to child care,” Sherrill said in her announcement video. Spanberger touts efforts aimed at “lowering prescription drug prices” and “lowering costs and easing inflation.”

Republicans, for their part, are feeling their oats.

While Trump won each swing state by narrow margins, he did sweep them, and he made notable gains among Democratic-friendly demographic groups and in blue states. And almost nothing is as unifying as winning.

“There’s an opportunity for sure, and being unified, that’s step one,” Virginia-based GOP strategist Zack Roday said. “If your party sweeps the House, Senate and the White House, you want to try to just hold your serve downballot and compete, and I think we can actually compete to win at the top. Democrats have the advantage, but there’s a lot around the coalition that could be united in both states that is really appealing to where the GOP is.”

It’s not all doom and gloom for Democrats, though.

Democrats performed well in off-year elections in 2017 after Trump’s first win and in the 2018 midterm elections, and New Jerseyans in particular have traditionally been reluctant to elevate Republicans the year after a Republican wins the White House. And while Trump was able to juice the base and cut into his opponent’s advantages, he still fell short in two states where Democrats retain voter registration edges.

“I don’t think that anyone’s sitting around panicking right now about where the election is. There’s certainly work to do, but there’s no panic,” one senior New Jersey Democratic strategist said.

Trump could also supercharge Democrats’ push to coalesce after their losses this month. His policy proposals, including banning travel from several Muslim-majority countries in 2017, infuriated the Democratic base, leading to Democratic successes in 2017 and 2018.

“It really started when Trump started doing really controversial, unpopular things, like the Muslim ban, and that’s when you saw governors and people come together to fight back against him. My suspicion is that same trend will happen here, where the reality of Trump’s policies will galvanize Democrats,” Leopold said.

However, he added, for a party that’s still smarting after its shortcomings this month, no race is considered safe, and Democrats will have their work cut out for them despite the friendly terrain.

Leopold noted that “2025 is a huge step on the path back for Democrats. We can lick our wounds for the rest of 2024, but come 2025, we got to get focused.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico on the first day of his administration could dramatically raise prices for Americans on everything from cars to clothes to oil.

It could also blow up a trade deal between the United States, Canada and Mexico (USMCA) that went into effect in 2020 after extensive and intense negotiations by Trump’s own administration.

Trump late Monday said he would charge Mexico and Canada with a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States until action is taken by those country to stem illegal immigration and overflow of drugs across the border.

For China, Trump said that he’d impose an additional 10% tariff on products coming to the U.S.

Mexico, Canada and China are America’s top three trading partners, meaning Trump’s tariff plan would impact nearly every aspect of the U.S. economy.

While it could very well be a negotiating tactic, similar to how Trump threatened tariffs in his first administration, experts say it won’t be as effective this time around because countries know what’s coming.

“This is more likely a play designed to put pressure on our closest trading partners,” said Raymond Robertson, professor for trade, economics and public policy at Texas A&M University. “But this is the same playbook done the second time around. If you’re on the football field and you call the same play twice, it’s not going to be as effective the second time.

Robertson added that countries know this would be “disruptive” and a “disaster” but they’ve “seen how this game works.”

Trading partners could seek closer ties to Europe and other countries and rely less on the United States, “which means higher prices for us,” Robertson said. He added the plan would also likely push Mexico and China closer together.

“Trump ran on this whole campaign that inflation is too high, but now he’s going to put a tax on everything you buy,” Robertson said.

Most economists agree that tariffs are inflationary, by passing the higher cost of inputs to consumers. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that Trump’s proposed tariffs from the campaign trail would cost US households more than $2,600 a year.

What is the current trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico?

The USMCA was signed by Trump as an update to North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

It allowed for mostly duty-free trade between the three countries. Trump’s threat of tariffs would seem to violate the terms.

Trump said on the campaign trail this year he wanted to renegotiate the USMCA by taking advantage of a window that allows for a review six years after signing. But that opportunity to renegotiate wouldn’t come until 2026.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he spoke with Trump on Monday night and “it was a good call.”

“We obviously talked about laying out the facts, talking about how the intense and effective connections between our two countries flow back and forth,” Trudeau said. “We talked about some of the challenges that we can work on together.”

Mexico’s president, meanwhile, fired back at Trump and warned him not to start a trade war.

“President Trump, it is not with threats nor with tariffs that migration and drug consumption in the U.S. will be dealt with. These great challenges require cooperation and mutual understanding,” President Claudia Sheinbaum said at her daily press conference as she read aloud a letter her administration is sending Trump later Tuesday.

The USMCA was a big deal for Trump — a 2016 campaign promise he delivered and a major bipartisan achievement for his administration.

During his first run for the White House he pledged to negotiate a better NAFTA, calling it one of the worst trade deals ever made.

It took most of his term but he got a deal with the United States’ neighbors to the north and south. And he signed it with great fanfare at the White House on Jan. 29, 2020, surrounded by Americans in uniforms, hard hats and cowboy hats.

“Everybody said this was a deal that could not be done — too complicated, too big, couldn’t be done. We got it done,” Trump said that day.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump is making good on his tariff promises, saying Monday he plans to impose them on Mexico, Canada and China in an effort to stop the flow of drugs entering the country and illegal border crossings.

Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that one of the first executive orders he will sign when he takes office on Jan. 20, 2025, will be to charge Mexico and Canada with a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States.

“This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country! Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price.” Trump posted.

Canada’s deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, and public safety minister, Dominic LeBlanc, released a joint statement on the proposed tariffs Monday, saying, “Canada and the United States have one of the strongest and closest relationships – particularly when it comes to trade and border security. Canada places the highest priority on border security and the integrity of our shared border.”

The officials noted that Canada buys more from the U.S than China, Japan, France and the U.K. combined.

“Canada is essential to US domestic energy supply, and last year 60 percent of US crude oil imports originated in Canada,” Freeland and LeBlanc said in the statement on X.

In another post, Trump said that he will be charging China with an additional 10% tariff on top of any additional tariffs on products coming into the U.S., arguing the country wasn’t doing enough to stop the flow of illicit drugs.

“Representatives of China told me that they would institute their maximum penalty, that of death, for any drug dealers caught doing this but, unfortunately, they never followed through, and drugs are pouring into our Country, mostly through Mexico, at levels never seen before,” Trump claimed.

During the presidential campaign, Trump proposed tariffs of between 60% and 100% on Chinese goods, and a tax of between 10% and 20% on every product imported from all U.S. trading partners.

The day before the election, Trump told a rally in Pittsburgh, “I’m putting tariffs on Mexico. Every damn thing that they sell into the United States has got to have like a 25% tariff until they stop drugs from coming in.”

Economists widely forecast that tariffs of this magnitude would increase prices paid by U.S. shoppers, since importers typically pass along a share of the cost of those higher taxes to consumers.

Trump’s tariffs would cost the average U.S. household about $2,600 per year, according to an estimate from the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Raymond Robertson, professor for trade, economics and public policy at Texas A&M University, told ABC News Trump’s plan will not be as effective because countries know what’s coming.

“This is more likely a play designed to put pressure on our closest trading partners,” Robertson said. “But this is the same playbook done the second time around. If you’re on the football field and you call the same play twice, it’s not going to be as effective the second time.”

Robertson added that countries know this would be “disruptive” and a “disaster,” but they’ve “seen how this game works.” Robertson says our trading partners could seek closer ties to Europe and other countries and rely less on the U.S., “which means higher prices for us.”

-ABC News’ Max Zahn and Selina Wang contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration has proposed a new rule to “significantly” expand coverage of anti-obesity medications for Americans with Medicare and Medicaid, according to the White House.

“Over the past few years, there have been major scientific advancements in the treatment of obesity, with the introduction of new life-saving drugs,” the White House said in a statement released on Tuesday. “These anti-obesity medications can help prevent the development of Type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, these drugs reduce deaths and sickness from heart attack and other cardiovascular outcomes by up to 20%. But for too many Americans, these critical treatments are too expensive and therefore out of reach. Without insurance coverage, these drugs can cost someone as much as $1,000 a month.”

Millions of Americans struggle with obesity — an estimated 42%, according to the White House — and it is now widely recognized as a chronic disease with increased risk of all-cause mortality and multiple related comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke and some cancers.

Medicare and Medicaid currently cover the use of anti-obesity medication for certain conditions, like diabetes. But the new proposal on Tuesday would “expand access to these innovative medications for obesity, which is widely recognized as a disease and help an estimated 3.4 million Americans with Medicare,” the White House said.

“Medicare coverage would reduce out-of-pocket costs for these prescription drugs by as much as 95 percent for some enrollees. Approximately 4 million adult Medicaid enrollees would also gain new access to these medications,” the White House continued.

The proposal would “allow Americans and their doctors to determine the best path forward so they can lead healthier lives, without worrying about their ability to cover these drugs out-of-pocket, and ultimately reduce health care costs to our nation,” White House officials said.

The proposed rule would be implemented at the same time as a comprehensive agenda to lower the costs of drugs, including the drug price negotiation program and increased market competition.

“Thanks to the President’s efforts, seniors are already seeing lower prescription drug costs with insulin capped at $35, free vaccines, and out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs capped at $2,000 starting in 2025,” the Biden administration said. “Already this year, nearly 1.5 million people with Medicare Part D saved nearly $1 billion in out-of-pocket prescription drugs costs in the first half of 2024 because of the Biden-Harris Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act. Furthermore, HHS has reached agreement with drug manufacturers for the first ten negotiated drugs, with new prices that are reduced between 38 to 79 percent starting in 2026.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s election interference case has dismissed the case, after special counsel Jack Smith asked the judge to toss the case due to a long-standing Justice Department policy that bars the prosecution of a sitting president.

Smith earlier Monday moved to dismiss Trump’s election interference case and the appeal of his classified documents case ahead of Trump’s impending inauguration, due to the DOJ’s presidential immunity policy and not because the charges lacked merit.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the charges against Trump without prejudice, leaving open the highly unlikely possibility of a future prosecution.

In a two-page opinion, Judge Chutkan wrote that dismissing the case without prejudice is “appropriate” and would not harm the “public interest,” agreeing with Smith’s argument that Trump’s immunity would not cover him when he leaves office.

“Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office,” Chutkan wrote.

However, it’s extremely unlikely that any prosecutor would attempt to bring the same charges in the future, in part because the statute of limitations for the alleged crimes will have expired by the time Trump leaves office in four years.

Trump’s lawyers did not oppose the government’s motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.

Smith also asked the judge in Trump’s classified documents case that his appeal against Trump’s two co-defendants in that case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Olivera, be allowed to continue.

Smith’s requests came nearly 16 months after a grand jury first indicted Trump over his alleged efforts to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” Smith stated in his motion.

“The country have never faced the circumstance here, where a federal indictment against a private citizen has been returned by a grand jury and a criminal prosecution is already underway when the defendant is elected President,” the motion said. “After careful consideration, the Department has determined that OLC’s prior opinions concerning the Constitution’s prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President apply to this situation and that as a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated.”

Smith moved to dismiss his appeal of the charges against Trump in his classified documents case, in which Trump pleaded not guilty last year to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case in July over her finding that Smith was improperly appointed to his role. Smith appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that legal precedent and history confirm the attorney general’s ability to appoint special counsels.

Monday’s filing asked the court to dismiss that appeal — but it sought to keep the appeal in place for Nauta and De Olivera, two Trump employees who pleaded not guilty to obstruction charges.

“The appeal concerning the other two defendants will continue because, unlike defendant Trump, no principle of temporary immunity applies to them,” the filing said.

In a statement, John Irving, a lawyer for De Oliveira, said, “The Special Counsel’s decision to proceed in this case even after dismissing it against President Trump is an unsurprising tribute to the poor judgment that led to the indictment against Mr. De Oliveira in the first place. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. If they prefer a slow acquittal, that’s fine with us.”

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung, in a statement, called Smith’s motions to dismiss a “major victory for the rule of law” and said, “The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”

In the election interference case, Trump last year pleaded not guilty to federal charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations,” trying to enlist the vice president to “alter the election results,” and promoting false claims of a stolen election during the

Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.

Smith subsequently charged Trump in a superseding indictment that was adjusted to respect the Supreme Court’s July ruling that Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken as president.

Earlier this month, Judge Chutkan cancelled the remaining deadlines in the election interference case after Smith requested time to “assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy” following Trump’s election.

Judge Chutkan had been in the process of considering how the case should proceed in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.

Smith had faced filing deadlines of Dec. 2 for both the election interference case and the classified documents case, after Smith’s team requested more time to determine how to face the unprecedented situation of pending federal cases against someone who had just been elected to the presidency.

Getting Monday’s filings in a week ahead of schedule now raises the question of whether Smith will be able to beat the clock to officially close his office down and submit his final report to Attorney General Merrick Garland — as is required of him per the DOJ’s special counsel regulations — before Inauguration Day.

The final report will have to go through a classification review by the intelligence community, a process that can sometimes take weeks before it is approved for any kind of public release.

Garland has made clear in appearances before Congress and in public statements that he is committed to making public the final reports of all special counsels during his tenure, which included reports by special counsel Robert Hur following his probe of President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents before assuming the presidency, and by special counsel John Durham following his probe of the 2016 Russia investigation.

Special counsel David Weiss is still continuing his investigation of FBI informant Alexander Smirnov, who pleaded not guilty to charges of lying about President Biden and his son Hunter Biden, and is set to take the case to trial in California next week. It’s unclear whether he will formally close his investigation down and submit a final report prior to Trump taking office.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump responded Monday to special counsel Jack Smith’s move to dismiss the two felony cases against him.

“These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought,” he wrote on his social media platform.

“It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump added.

Vice President-elect JD Vance said Trump could have “spent the rest of his life in prison” had the outcome of the 2024 race been different.

“If Donald J. Trump had lost an election, he may very well have spent the rest of his life in prison,” Vance wrote on X. “These prosecutions were always political. Now it’s time to ensure what happened to President Trump never happens in this country again.”

Smith, in back-to-back court filings, cited the Justice Department’s “categorical” policy that he said bars the prosecution of a sitting president as the reason for his request to drop the federal election interference case and the classified documents case.

Trump pleaded not guilty to four charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, brought by Smith in connection with Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden. The case was plagued with delays and developments, including a Supreme Court decision that a president is entitled to some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during their time in office.

Trump also pleaded not guilty to the 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified material after leaving the White House. The case was dismissed by a federal judge in Florida in July, though Smith had been appealing the decision.

During his presidential campaign, Trump told supporters he was their “retribution” and that he was “being indicted for you.”

Steven Cheung, the incoming White House communications director, called Smith’s decision a “major victory for the rule of law” and said Americans want Trump to end “weaponization of our justice system.”

Some of Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill also celebrated the development.

“Huge win for America, President Trump, and the fight against the weaponization of the justice system,” House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on X. “This was ALWAYS about politics and not the law.”

California Democratic Sen.-elect Adam Schiff, however, said the Justice Department and the courts “failed to uphold the principle that no one is above the law.”

Schiff was a member of the House Jan. 6 Committee that spent more than a year investigating the Capitol attack. The panel, which voted to recommend charges against Trump, identified Trump and his actions after the 2020 election as the “central cause” of what transpired on Jan. 6, 2021.

“DOJ by neglecting to promptly investigate the events of Jan 6, and the courts by willfully delaying progress of the case and providing immunity,” Schiff wrote on X. “The public deserved better.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.