(WASHINGTON) — House Speaker Mike Johnson is forging ahead with a plan to try to pass aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan that’s been tied up in a political fight in Washington for months — but will the move cost him his job?
Johnson laid out a proposal to split the $95 billion foreign aid package passed by the Senate into three separate bills, one for each country, and a fourth bill loaded with conservative priorities.
Johnson spoke with President Joe Biden on Monday before unveiling his plan to his conference, two sources told ABC News. A White House official said it was waiting to see the plan “in detail” before discussing with Democrats how to proceed.
But Johnson’s approach is already causing more rancor with the right flank of his party, as a second member said Tuesday he would join Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s motion to remove him from the speaker post.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said he told Johnson in a closed-door conference meeting he would cosponsor Greene’s motion, which she introduced last month. Massie said he suggested Johnson “pre-announce” his resignation so Republicans can get to work on finding a new speaker and avoid any lapse in leadership.
ABC News Senior Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott asked Johnson for his response to Republicans who say that if he doesn’t step aside, they may oust him over this issue.
“I am not resigning,” Johnson answered. “And it is, in my view, an absurd notion that someone would bring a vacate motion when we are simply here trying to do our jobs.”
Johnson continued, “It is not helpful to the cause. It is not helpful to the country. It does not help the House Republicans to advance our agenda.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (R) speaks during a joint press conference with Guatemala’s President Bernardo Arevalo (not in frame) at the Culture Palace in Guatemala City, on March 21, 2024. (Johan Ordonez/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — After voting in February to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his handling of the southern border, proceedings are expected to head to the next stage on Tuesday, when the articles of impeachment are transmitted to the Senate.
One thing is clear: This is not going to look like the impeachments we’ve seen in the last few years since a full-scale trial on the Senate floor is not likely, according to senators and leadership aides — despite what many House and Senate Republicans want.
The House voted to impeach Mayorkas on Feb. 13 by a vote of 214-213 over what Republicans claimed was his failure to enforce border laws amid what they call a “crisis” of high illegal immigration, allegations the secretary denied as “baseless.”
The DHS has blasted the impeachment efforts.
“Without a shred of evidence or legitimate Constitutional grounds, and despite bipartisan opposition, House Republicans have falsely smeared a dedicated public servant who has spent more than 20 years enforcing our laws and serving our country,” DHS spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said in a statement. “Secretary Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security will continue working every day to keep Americans safe.”
The House had originally planned to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for consideration last week, but Speaker Mike Johnson delayed transmission in part at the urging of Senate Republicans, who hoped a delay would give the Senate more time to prepare and debate the merits of having a trial, which many Republicans want.
Despite that delay, chances of a full-scale Senate trial remain slim. Exactly how the impeachment proceedings will play out is still unclear — the Senate has the option to either dismiss the trial outright or to require a committee to hear it instead.
Senate Democrats are largely expected to move to dismiss — or table — a trial, but that would require every Senate Democrat to vote together to accomplish that, and Republicans will object.
Here’s how the proceedings are expected to play out:
House managers walk articles of impeachment to Senate
The next formal steps are expected to get underway at 2:15 p.m. Tuesday.
On Monday, in what’s called an “engrossment ceremony,” Johnson signed the articles, calling on the Senate to hold a trial.
On Tuesday, the articles will be ceremoniously walked across the Capitol, led by the House clerk and the House sergeant-at-arms and followed by the House impeachment managers. The articles will go from the House chamber through the Capitol rotunda to the doors of the Senate.
The House impeachment managers are: Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, Reps. Andy Biggs, Ben Cline, Andrew Garbarino, Michael Guest, Harriet Hageman, Clay Higgins, Laurel Lee, August Pfluger and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
The sergeant-at-arms will then announce the House impeachment managers on the floor of the Senate, who — once received — will be escorted to the well of the Senate, in front of the dais.
The articles will then be read aloud and, once done, the manager who presents them will say: “The managers request that the Senate take order for the trial, the managers now request leave to withdraw.”
Senate President Pro Tempore Patty Murray, D-Wash., will then announce the Senate will notify the House when it is ready to proceed with the trial.
Murray will preside over the Senate trial. Chief Justice John Roberts is not required to preside because it is not the trial of a sitting president.
The House managers will then make a ceremonial walk back to the House.
Senators sworn in as jurors
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said senators will be sworn in as jurors on Wednesday.
“After the House impeachment managers present the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Senators will be sworn in as jurors in the trial the next day,” Schumer’s office said in a statement.
Once the Senate is back in session for the trial, the oath is administered to the Senate as a group. The senators rise from their desks and and raise their right hands in unison.
Murray will then read the oath: “Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, now pending you will do impartial justice according to the constitutions and laws so help you God?”
Senators then come to the dais in groups of four to sign the oath book.
Then the sergeant-at-arms will make the proclamation: “Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States an article of impeachment against Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.”
The Senate then begins voting on the organizational rules of the trial.
This is not likely to be a trial like the previous ones; it will not consume weeks of floor time. However, Senate leaders have been tight-lipped about their precise plans.
How proceedings could play out
One possibility is that the Senate could move very quickly to dispense with the trial. In that scenario, Senate Democrats can make a motion to dismiss — a move that would take only 51 votes.
If the vote reaches that threshold, the trial would be tabled and that would be the end of the matter. Democrats control 51 seats in the Senate, so if they stick together, they can dismiss the trial without any GOP support if they so choose.
While senators have the authority to vote to dismiss the trial, don’t expect most Republicans to agree.
In a letter to Schumer on March 28, Johnson, along with the impeachment managers, called upon Schumer to “fulfill your constitutional obligation to hold this trial.”
“To table articles of impeachment without ever hearing a single argument or reviewing a piece of evidence would be a violation of our constitutional order and an affront to the American people whom we all serve,” they wrote.
Another option is that the Senate votes to send the trial to be heard by a committee.
When someone who is not president of the United States faces trial, the Senate has within its rules the ability to have a special committee of senators hear the whole of the trial instead of the entire Senate.
The committee is called a “trial committee” and it is usually convened via an organizing resolution.
The Senate gets to set its own rules for a trial, so in most impeachment trials, there’s a debate over an “organizing resolution” — a proposed set of rules governing the trial that the Senate must vote to approve. If the Senate were to try to kick this trial to a committee, instructions to do so would likely be in this organizing resolution.
That resolution would be brought up, debated and voted on. If it were approved, the articles would then be kicked to the committee and sent off the Senate floor. Leadership would appoint members (usually six Democrats and six Republicans) to sit on that committee.
House managers would then present their impeachment case to the committee. Lawyers for Mayorkas would have time to present counter arguments.
The committee would make footage of its hearings available to the public and to senators. At the end of the trial, they would present a full report and recommendation to the whole of the Senate. The whole Senate would then vote on whether or not to convict.
The last impeachment to be heard by a trial committee with the impeachment of federal judge Thomas Porteous in 2010.
A final option is that the Senate holds a full-scale trial.
Sources have signaled to ABC News that there will not be an impeachment trial like the ones we’ve come to know from impeachment proceedings of former President Donald Trump.
Though it’s unlikely that we’d see a weekslong trial on the floor of the Senate, it’s still technically possible.
If it does, the Senate would adopt an organizing resolution and then managers would present their arguments.
It would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict Mayorkas.
File photo. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Tuesday kicks off a multi-day campaign swing through Pennsylvania, in Scranton, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia — in what his campaign hopes to be a messaging contrast with Donald Trump as the former president goes on trial.
Biden, whom early polls show is in a close race with his predecessor, plans to focus on tax policy versus Trump, including in a stop at the United Steelworkers’ headquarters.
During a meeting with the Czech prime minister, Petr Fiala, on Monday, Biden shook his head “no” when asked by a reporter whether or not he would be watching Trump’s trial.
Rather, he plans to be “talking about the issues” that matter most to Americans, his campaign says, echoing what the White House has long said.
“Donald Trump and his team are gonna have to speak to his legal issues,” said Biden spokesman Michael Tyler, who also attacked Trump’s message of “revenge and retribution,” which he said is “going to be a continuation of the contrast the American people have been able to see since this campaign began.”
On a call with reporters on Monday, Tyler cited Biden’s personal ties to Pennsylvania, saying he sees the world from his “kitchen table” where he grew up in Scranton — while, Tyler argued, Trump sees the world from his “country club” at Mar-a-Lago, a reversal of Trump’s frequent boasts that his business success makes him a better leader.
“Nowhere is that contrast of world views on display more clearly than when it comes to who each candidate believes should be paying more in taxes and who they believe should be paying less,” Tyler said.
While the president regularly stops in Philadelphia, at the heart of a key battleground state, this is the first time he has visited Scranton since August.
His campaign wants to provide something of a split-screen with Trump as the former president’s historic New York trial is underway in which he’s accused of falsifying business records related to hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.
Trump denies the claims, including the alleged affair, and says he’s being politically persecuted, which the district attorney rejects.
He has regularly attacked Biden over high inflation, immigration and more, labeling Biden as the country’s “worst president.”
Biden’s campaign claims Trump plans to give billionaires tax breaks during his second term, while under Biden “nobody making less than $400,000 a year would see their taxes go up … [and] he would prioritize extending additional tax benefits to help working Americans in areas where they really need it,” said Brian Deese, a senior adviser.
In a memo, Biden’s campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, highlighted the inroads the campaign says it has made in Pennsylvania, a swing state that Biden won by about a 1% margin in 2020, four years after Trump won by slightly less 1%.
Among other assets, the Biden campaign cited seven offices in Philadelphia and surrounding counties. In the month of March, they opened 14 offices around the state in a single week and engaged 1,700 volunteers, they said.
“This election is going to be one by earning and not just asking for each American’s vote,” said Deese, the adviser. “We’re obviously looking at Pennsylvania right now, where the president is spending the week campaigning — and it’s a textbook example of how we’re going to earn those votes.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in a high-stakes case that could invalidate felony obstruction charges for more than 300 individuals connected to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack — including former President Donald Trump.
At issue in the case of Fischer v. United States is whether a federal law enacted in 2002 to prevent the cover-up of financial crimes can be used to put some Jan. 6 defendants behind bars, potentially up to 20 years.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in response to the Enron accounting scandal, criminalizes the destruction of evidence — specifically records or documents — and anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”
Joseph Fischer was a participant in the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6 who faces prosecution for allegedly being part of the crowd that entered the Capitol as Congress was attempting to certify the 2020 election results.
The Justice Department alleges Fischer’s unauthorized presence inside the Capitol building impeded Congress’ certification of the electoral vote count, which is an “official proceeding.”
Trump is not named in the case but faces the same charge being challenged by Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer.
The DOJ has used the statute to win convictions or guilty pleas against more than 150 individuals involved in the events of Jan. 6.
Fischer argues the government’s reading of the law is overly broad and unprecedented. He claims the “obstruction of an official proceeding” clause should apply only to the types of financial and evidentiary crimes the law was intended to target.
A District Court judge — Trump-appointee Carl J. Nichols — sided with Fischer and dismissed the felony count against him and several other alleged rioters. Later, a divided Appeals Court panel reversed that decision in a 2-1 ruling that reinstated the charges.
Overall, 14 of the 15 federal judges who have overseen cases involving alleged Capitol rioters charged with obstruction of an official proceeding have allowed the DOJ to use the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Fischer, it could call into question dozens of Jan. 6 prosecutions — potentially resulting in some overturned convictions or reduced sentences — but would likely not upend the majority of Jan. 6 cases, most of which involve violent felony charges or misdemeanor infractions like trespassing, legal experts say.
Such a decision could, however, significantly undermine special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Two of the four counts in the federal indictment against Trump involve the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and alleged conspiracy to obstruct and actual obstruction of an official proceeding.
In a separate case this month, the high court will decide whether Trump is altogether immune from criminal prosecution for his alleged election interference. A ruling in both cases is expected by the end of June.
Former President Donald Trump appears with his legal team Todd Blanche, and Emil Bove ahead of the start of jury selection at Manhattan Criminal Court, Apr. 15, 2024, in New York City. (Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump appeared in a Manhattan, New York criminal court on Monday, marking the first day of the first-ever criminal trial against a former U.S. president.
Trump last April pleaded not guilty to a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records in connection with alleged hush money payments his then-attorney Michael Cohen made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
The historic trial — which is expected to last six to eight weeks — kicked off Monday with jury selection, which is supposed to take up to two weeks.
Outside the courtroom — and throughout the day on his social media platform Truth Social — the former president was defiant, lambasting the prosecution as politically motivated. Inside the courtroom, however, he cut a different figure — reclining in his seat, arms folded, at times appearing to shut his eyes.
Hundreds of prospective jurors showed up to the courthouse Monday morning, but voir dire did not begin until late afternoon, delayed by hours of pretrial procedural matters and questions about scheduling.
Judge Juan M. Merchan began by denying a motion filed by Trump’s legal team calling for the judge to recuse himself from the case — something they’ve sought repeatedly. Merchan called Trump’s insinuations that he is biased against him unsubstantiated and said they would not address the topic again.
The jury questionnaire was also a point of contention, with Merchan rejecting a claim by Trump lawyer Todd Blanche that it contained “asymmetry” that would allow staunchly anti-Trump jurors to be selected.
There were also issues to hash out regarding what evidence could be presented during the trial. Blanche argued against the inclusion of evidence concerning Trump’s interactions with the National Enquirer and his alleged affair with former Playboy model Karen McDougal — calling the matters a “sideshow” and “literally just salacious with no value” — but Merchan sided with prosecutors, saying the details were crucial to “lay the proper foundation” for the case. Trump has denied having an affair with either McDougal or Stormy Daniels.
“My ruling that we were not to play the tape was, and remains, that the tape itself is so prejudicial — to see Mr. Trump depicted, the words coming out of his mouth, the facial expressions … the tape itself should not come in,” Merchan said of the decision.
Prosecutors will, however, be permitted to read Trump’s words from the video aloud.
On Monday, prosecutors asked Judge Merchan to hold Trump in contempt and fined $3,000 for three alleged violations of the limited gag order in the case.
Prosecutors argued that three posts by the former president — related to likely witnesses Michael Cohen and Daniels, as well as a member of the prosecution team — violated the terms of the limited gag order. The gag order prohibits Trump from making public comments about potential witnesses, prospective jurors, lawyers on the case other than Bragg, and the families of both Merchan and Bragg.
Merchan set a hearing on the matter for April 23.
Just after 2:30 p.m. ET, 96 prospective jurors — some of whom craned their necks to catch a glimpse of the former president, and at least one who giggled and raised her eyebrows — were escorted into the courtroom to begin the selection process. As Merchan introduced the case, the former president turned to face the gallery, offering a tight-lipped smile.
More than half of the potential jury members were excused after they identified that they could not be fair or impartial in deciding the case. The remaining pool was questioned further, providing information about their jobs, hobbies, preferred news outlets and whether they hold any opinions of Trump that could unfairly sway them. Two witnesses were struck for cause, including a man who said the trial would interfere with his child’s wedding.
Another potential juror, a bookstore employee who lives on the Upper West Side, spoke about his feelings on the criminal justice system while answering the questionnaire.
“I believe that nobody is above the law, whether it be a former president or a sitting president or a janitor,” he said.
That particular juror was excused. No jurors were seated Monday for the trial.
The court adjourned for the day just after 4:30 p.m. and is expected to pick back up with jury selection on Tuesday morning at 9:30 a.m.
(WASHINGTON) — The White House on Monday carefully avoided weighing in on any possible Israeli response to Iran’s attack over the weekend but also stressed the U.S. didn’t want to see further escalation in the region.
“This is an Israeli decision to make — whether and how they’ll respond to what Iran did on Saturday,” National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters at the daily press briefing. “And we’re going to leave it squarely with them.”
ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce followed up by asking if the administration was making any suggestions to Israel officials on how to react.
“We are not involved in their decision-making process about a potential response,” Kirby responded.
Asked if President Biden specifically asked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to show restraint toward Iran, Kirby would only say Biden relayed to the Israeli leader that Saturday night highlighted Israel’s military superiority over Iran as well as the coalition of partners ready to defend Israel.
“The president urged the prime minister to think about what that success says all by itself to the rest of the region,” Kirby said.
“All I’ll say is that the president from the beginning of this conflict and Oct. 7 has been steadfast and consistent,” he continued. “We don’t want to see a war with Iran. We don’t want to see a broader regional conflict. We will do what we have to do to defend Israel.”
Biden had a similar message when he spoke briefly while meeting with the Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani in the Oval Office, where the two were set to discuss the importance of their partnership at a critical moment.
“Iran launched an unprecedented aerial attack against Israel and we mounted an unprecedented military effort to defend Israel,” Biden said. “Together with our partners, we defeated that attack.”
“The United States is committed to Israel’s security,” the president continued. “We’re committed to a cease-fire that will bring the hostages home and preventing conflict from spreading beyond what it already has.”
Biden did not take questions or elaborate on what he believed should happen next as Israel considers how to react to Iran’s attack as he met with Iraq’s al-Sudani, though the administration’s made clear it doesn’t want a wider war.
Netanyahu met Monday with his war cabinet to discuss potential responses to Iran’s attack. An Israeli official said after the meeting there is agreement that Israel must respond to Iran’s attack over the weekend but “the question is how.”
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell chastised the Biden administration for its response to the situation so far, saying Biden is trying to “tie the hands of an ally under attack.”
“The public criticism of Israel by senior administration officials undoubtably influences the decisions of Israel’s adversaries,” McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor. “If the president’s commitment to a vital ally were ‘ironclad’ his response to this weekend’s attack would not be to lecture her leaders against responding in self-defense. Would an American commander in chief fail to respond if an adversary launched 300 missiles at American soil?”
McConnell added, “It’s time for the commander in chief to stand by our allies and stand up to our adversaries.”
The April 13 attack on Israel was viewed as retaliation for a military strike on what Iran called its consulate in Damascus, Syria. The strike killed seven people, including a top Iranian commander. The Pentagon said earlier this month that Israel was behind the strike, though Israel has not claimed responsibility.
On Monday, Israel’s Chief of the General Staff Herzi Halevi visited an airbase where Iranian missiles struck over the weekend, stating Iran’s actions “will be met with a response.”
President Biden, a day before Iran’s actions, delivered a blunt message to the country: “Don’t.”
Asked about Iran’s apparent defiance despite Biden’s warning, Kirby said the U.S. stepping in to aid Israel during Saturday’s attack should send a clear message that “when the president says we’re going to take our commitments to the region seriously and we’re going to help Israel defend itself, we got skin in the game and we prove it.”
Kirby also vehemently denied reports that Iran provided the U.S. advance notice of its plans to strike Israel. He described such a narrative as “ludicrous” and “categorically false.”
“Iran never delivered a message giving us the time and the targets,” he said.
He said Israel is in a stronger position and Iran weakened after Israel, with the help of U.S. and other partners, fended off hundreds of missiles and drones unleashed by Tehran over the weekend.
Kirby said “much of the world today is standing with Israel” while G7 partners, at President Joe Biden’s direction, are working on new, multilateral sanctions to target Iran’s missile program.
“That’s the upshot here: A stronger Israel, weaker Iran and more unified alliance of partners,” Kirby told reporters. “That was not Iran’s intent when it launched this attack on Saturday night, not even close. And again, they failed. They failed utterly.”
ABC News’ Allison Pecorin and Dana Savir contributed to this report.
(BOISE, Id.) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Idaho to proceed with enforcement of a new law aimed at prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors.
The decision overrides two lower federal courts that had upheld an injunction against the law as litigation over the merits continues.
The decision was backed by all six of the high court’s conservative members; the three liberal justices would have kept the law on hold.
The court did, however, allow the parents and two children who brought the case against the law to continue to obtain treatments during litigation. The children, who are not named in the suit, are said to be seeking puberty blockers and estrogen, which the families and their doctors say are critical for mental health.
In a joint statement, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho called the ruling an “awful result.”
“While the court’s ruling today importantly does not touch upon the constitutionality of this law, it is nonetheless an awful result for transgender youth and their families across the state,” the joint statement read. “Today’s ruling allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption. Nonetheless, today’s result only leaves us all the more determined to defeat this law in the courts entirely, making Idaho a safer state to raise every family.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Las Vegas on Monday afternoon to rally support for a ballot measure to enshrine abortion access in the Nevada Constitution as President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign continues to spotlight her as one of their leading voices on abortion rights — an issue they see as galvanizing to voters across the aisle and country ahead of what’s expected to be a tight general election fight.
Harris, in late afternoon remarks, will call the effort to codify the protections of Roe v. Wade in the battleground state “an important step to protect against extremist state lawmakers who may try to adopt another ‘Trump abortion ban,'” according to a Biden-Harris campaign official, referring to Harris’ repeated criticism that former President Donald Trump is to blame for the various restrictions around the U.S.
Trump has often celebrated his role in ending Roe, through his Supreme Court picks, but maintains that abortion should be decided by each state, not nationally, and should include exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the pregnant woman.
He has criticized some of the more strict bans, including in Arizona, which he said must be addressed by local lawmakers.
But Harris, in Nevada, plans to say that Trump is now attempting to downplay his past support for a national ban — something he has discussed in private, ABC News reported in February — which Harris will amount to “gaslighting,” arguing that he would sign an abortion ban if Republicans in Congress gave him the chance and he is voted back into the White House.
It will be the vice president’s second “reproductive freedoms” campaign event in four days after a trip to Tucson, Arizona, on Friday. That trip was made in the wake of the Arizona Supreme Court ruling last week to uphold an 1864 law which bans all abortions unless to save the life of the mother and carries criminal penalties for doctors who help with abortion care. (The 19th-century ban is temporarily on hold but is expected to go into effect within weeks.)
At the invitation of Harris, Arizona State Sen. Eva Burch, who recently shared her abortion story on the state Senate floor after a wanted pregnancy, will join the vice president in Las Vegas to speak about neighboring Arizona’s abortion landscape.
If Arizona becomes a so-called abortion desert, in which access is essentially banned, Nevada, where abortion is currently legal up to 24 weeks, could end up being a nearby alternative, advocates say.
Biden-Harris campaign staffers and volunteers will also be on-site on Monday to help collect signatures for Nevada’s ballot measure, which aims to protect and strengthen abortion access.
Similar initiatives in other states have galvanized voters, who have uniformly cast ballots in favor of abortion access, in red and blue states.
Under the proposed text of the Nevada ballot measure, abortion access would be enshrined in the state constitution up to fetal viability, which is around 24 weeks of pregnancy. The state would be allowed to legislate on abortion after fetal viability unless a health care provider says abortion is necessary.
Nevada requires more than 102,000 valid signatures by June 26 and of those, at least 25,000 must come from each of Nevada’s four congressional districts, to get the effort on the ballot.
The group collecting signatures, Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, has not announced whether they’ve reached their goal in all districts, but the group said it has collected more than 150,000 signatures and expects to gain momentum with Harris promoting the effort on Monday.
The vice president’s speech on Friday in Tucson, where she mentioned Trump’s name 17 times and labeled abortion bans in 20 other states as “Trump abortion bans,” marked a “new phase,” a campaign official said.
Trump’s own messaging on the issue has shifted, including with his announcement last week — which he repeatedly teased — in which he said abortion should be left to the states. He touted that that view would also neutralize Democrats’ focus on it.
But pressed on Friday by ABC News’ Rachel Scott, Trump would not further explain his reversal, having previously promised as president to sign a national abortion ban.
“We broke Roe v. Wade, and we did something that nobody thought was possible. We gave it back to the states, and the states are working very brilliantly, in some cases conservative, in some case, not conservative,” Trump said, adding, “It’s working the way it’s supposed to.”
Democrats have seized on Trump’s change in tone as part of a broader focus on abortion on the trail, where Trump often hammers Biden over high inflation, immigration and more.
Harris has held more than 80 abortion rights focused events since the U.S. Supreme Court decision overruling Roe in 2022, according to the official, but last week marked the first event, of more to come, led by Harris on the campaign side that was devoted to abortion rights.
She said in Tucson that the state court ruling upholding the 19th-century ban “demonstrated once and for all that overturning Roe was just the opening act.”
“Just the opening act of a larger strategy to take women’s rights and freedoms — part of a full-on attack state by state on reproductive freedom,” she said. “And we all must understand who is to blame. Former President Donald Trump did this.”
‘Mad as well’: Hundreds rally for abortion access in nearby battleground
In neighboring Arizona, abortion continues to roil the state’s politics.
On Sunday in Scottsdale, at least 500 people spanned four corners of a busy intersection for two hours under the desert sun to rally support for a similar ballot initiative as in Nevada enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution come November.
Supporters of all generations lined the sidewalks of Camelback and Scottsdale Roads with colorful signs — sending Old Town Scottsdale into a horn-honking frenzy of support — coupled with cheers and chants: “This is what democracy looks like.”
“This P.F. Chang’s is lit right now with people who are angry — as they should be,” said Hannah Tighe, 35, standing on the commercial strip.
“There’s families, there’s older women, there’s women who have used signs that they’ve had at other protests past,” Tighe said, describing that as both “awful” and “beautiful.”
Tighe said the state Supreme Court’s decision last week to uphold the abortion ban crafted before Arizona established statehood left her feeling “angry, shocked and embarrassed.”
“Arizona is a really cool, special state, and to live here [now] is embarrassing, to have that come through. And all my friends from other states are concerned — they want to make sure the women here are safe,” she added.
And though abortion opponents celebrated the revived ban — “the compassion of the pro-life movement won in court,” one said — supporters of abortion access were no less vocal, and some top state Republicans who had called themselves “100% pro-life” mirrored Trump in pushing back on the ruling.
Laura Levine, 65, was at the Scottsdale rally on Sunday and echoed others “angry” at both the decision and the state Legislature for failing to take quick action last week, saying she showed up with her with her two adult daughters in mind.
“I had an abortion a long time ago after being raped in the parking lot in the snow around Christmas, and I don’t want my daughters to experience anything like that, and it just blows my mind that we’re going so backward in this country,” she said.
“You can’t leave it up to the states,” she added. “You see what the states are doing.”
Chris Love, spokesperson at Arizona for Abortion Access, the group that is gathering signatures for the abortion access ballot initiative, said the effort has gained greater momentum in the last week.
“It’s unfortunate that it took the Supreme Court in 2024 deciding to uphold a ban in 1864 to get folks motivated — but they’re mad as hell,” Love said at the rally, as horns blared behind her. “For anybody who was kind of sitting on the sidelines, they’re here now.”
While Love said that organizers have already surpassed the state’s required signature threshold in favor of adding the measure to the ballot, the coalition will continue collecting every signature possible until the July 3 deadline “so that we stand the perfect chance of getting on the ballot.”
“We’re gonna keep collecting signatures until the wheels fall off, quite frankly,” Love said.
Paula Medina, 25, signed the petition for the ballot initiative and plans to support it in November but said she’s not sure she’ll vote for President Joe Biden, who is running with Harris on restoring the protections of Roe, despite the challenges that vote faces in Congress.
“I’m still working through it,” Medina said of her vote, explaining she voted for Biden and Harris in 2020 but isn’t comfortable with how the Israel-Hamas war is being handled. “I know there’s a third-party candidate who is coming up hot, but it’s so confusing. I don’t feel confident in my vote come this November’s election outside of this.”
Meanwhile lawmakers are set to reconvene in Arizona on Wednesday, though it’s unclear if the Republican-led Legislature has reached consensus with Democrats on how to address the 19th-century ban.
Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma said in a statement to ABC News last week, in part: “We as an elected body are going to take the time needed to listen to our constituents and carefully consider appropriate actions, rather than rush legislation on a topic of this magnitude without a larger discussion.”
ABC News’ Gabriella Abdul-Hakim, Soo Rin Kim and Oren Oppenheim contributed to this report.
(ATLANTA, Ga.) — Rudy Giuliani has lost his bid to dismiss the $148 million defamation judgment against him from late last year. The judgment was won by former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss.
“Giuliani’s renewed motion urging this Court to reverse its prior findings and rulings and to override the jury’s considered verdict on the basis of five threadbare arguments falls well short of persuading that ‘the evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are so one-sided that reasonable men and women could not have reached a verdict in [plaintiffs’] favor,'” U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell said in his ruling Monday.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu on Sunday reaffirmed his support for Donald Trump in the 2024 general election while standing by some — but not all — of his past criticism of the former president.
In an interview on ABC News’ “This Week,” Sununu, a Republican who endorsed former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley over Trump in the GOP primary, was repeatedly pressed by anchor George Stephanopoulos about his previous statements attacking the former president.
Sununu said he stood by a 2021 denunciation of Trump over Jan. 6 but said he no longer believes that Trump should leave the race if he is convicted in one of his four criminal cases. Trump denies all wrongdoing.
In a June 2023 CNN interview, when several Republicans were vying for the primary nomination against Trump, Sununu said that Trump should drop out of the presidential race if convicted of any of the charges he faces.
At the time of that interview, Trump had just been indicted over his alleged mishandling of classified documents while out of office and had already been indicted in a New York hush money case that is going to trial on Monday.
Since then, Trump has been indicted two more times — in a federal case related to Jan. 6 and a Georgia case over his alleged behavior while trying to overturn his 2020 defeat.
After repeated questioning by Stephanopoulos on “This Week” on Sunday, Sununu adjusted his response compared to his answer last year.
“Previously, you’ve said these charges are serious and Trump should drop out of the race if he’s convicted. Do you still believe that?” Stephanopoulos asked.
At first, Sununu said that Trump’s legal issues were the very “chaos” that he had challenged during the GOP primary when he backed Haley.
When Stephanopoulos followed up again, Sununu said he no longer thinks Trump should end his campaign upon a conviction.
“No, no, no — he’s going to drop out after being the nominee? Of course, not. You know that’s not to be expected at all,” Sununu said.
“At the end of the day, they [people] want that culture change within the Republican Party. And if we have to have Trump as the standard-bearer — and the voters decided that’s what they wanted, not what I wanted … If he’s going to be the standard-bearer of that, we’ll take it if we have to. That’s how badly America wants a culture change,” he said.
However, Sununu also said he “100%” still agrees with sharply worded criticism of Trump that he made days after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. At the time, Sununu said, “President Trump’s rhetoric and actions contributed to the insurrection.”
“His actions absolutely contributed to that,” Sununu said on Sunday. “There’s no question about that. I hate the election denialism of 2020. Nobody wants to be talking about that in 2024. I think all of that was absolutely terrible.”
But he said that backing Trump, who continues to falsely claim he won the 2020 election, was about more than just Trump and argued that many Americans agree that “change” is needed in the federal government.
“Liberal elites in Washington want to stand on the shoulders of hardworking American families that built this country, defended this country and tell them how to live their lives. They’re angry. They’re upset. That’s the culture change that people want to see,” the governor said.
“People are upset by Jan. 6,” he added. “They’re upset by the election denial. They have every right to be — I am — but at the end of the day, they need a culture change to get America back on track.”
Stephanopoulos pressed: “Please explain, given the fact that you believe he contributed to an insurrection, how you can say we should have him back in the Oval Office?”
“For me, it’s not solely about him; it’s about maintaining a Republican administration, Republican secretaries and Republican rules that prioritize states’ rights, individual rights and parents’ rights,” Sununu said.
“We’re going to have a pro-business economy. We’re not going to have a cancel culture that has really infiltrated all across America. It’s not about Trump with me,” Sununu insisted.
Sununu cited Trump’s continued, widespread support among Republicans and early polling that shows him sometimes beating President Joe Biden in the general election, though Sununu exaggerated how high Trump’s numbers usually are, according to polls tracked by 538.
“They’re not crazy. They’re not MAGA conservatives. They’re not extremists. They want culture change,” Sununu said.
“I’m not talking about polls,” Stephanopoulos pressed. “I’m asking you a very simple question. … You believe that a president who contributed to an insurrection should be president again?”
Sununu answered: “As does 51% of America, George.”
He went on to say that “it’s about understanding inflation is crushing families. It’s understanding that this border issue is not a Texas issue. It’s a 50-state issue, right, that has to be brought under control. It’s about that type of elitism that the average American is just sick and tired of.”
Meanwhile, Sununu contended that Trump’s pending trials have become akin to reality TV for “the average American.”
While he’s previously said he believes the New York case is political (which prosecutors deny), Sununu said last year that the classified documents charges against Trump were “obviously very severe” and “self-inflicted” and similarly called the federal election case against Trump “extremely severe.”
Stephanopoulos pushed for an answer: “You’re comfortable with the idea of supporting someone who’s convicted of a federal crime as president?”
“No — I don’t think any American is comfortable with any of this, they don’t like any of this, of course,” Sununu said.
Despite polling also showing that many voters would be turned off by Trump being convicted of a felony, Sununu emphasized his view that “right now this is about an election.”
“This is about politics. That’s what people are judging this on,” he said. “And the ultimate decision will be in November to see where people stand.”
