(WASHINGTON) — Sen. John Barrasso announced Tuesday that he’s seeking the No. 2 Senate GOP leadership position, bucking long-held expectations that he’d vie for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s top spot.
The Wyoming senator said he believes serving as the Republican Party’s whip will be the right fit for the GOP.
“I have had time to reflect on how I might best serve the Republican Conference and our party,” he said in a statement. “After a lot of thought I will ask my colleagues for their support and help to work for them as Assistant Republican Leader.”
Barrasso currently serves as the Republican Conference chair, making him the third-ranking Senate Republican. If elected Minority Whip, he will become the No. 2 Republican, replacing current Whip John Thune, who is aiming to be the party leader.
“Well, I hope to be, and I’m going to do everything I can to convince my colleagues,” Thune told Keloland News Monday. “They’re the voters. They’re the ones who ultimately make the decision.”
Last week, McConnell announced that he will step down as the Senate Republican leader in November after serving almost two decades in the role. He noted that he’ll finish his term as senator, which ends in 2027.
Barrasso’s decision to seek the No. 2 position is a bit of an early shake-up to this race, which was expected to be a face-off between Barrasso, Thune and Sen. John Cornyn — also known as the “three Johns.” Barrasso was largely seen as the most conservative and Trump-aligned of the three.
While campaigning in Arizona with Senate hopeful Kari Lake last week, Barrasso didn’t rule out running for Republican leader when asked directly if he would be seeking McConnell’s position.
“That election doesn’t occur until later in November. To me, the key election is the one earlier in November — the election for president in the United States and Senate seats all around the country, and that’s why I’m here,” he said. “That’s the election I’m concerned about. I want to do everything I can to make sure that Donald Trump is elected president of the United States again, and Kari Lake is part of a majority … for Republicans in the United States Senate.”
Down-ballot leadership races are just now being fleshed out, as those announcing their intent to to run for new positions leave new holes in the leadership structure as they look to move up the chain. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt Tuesday he’ll try to nab Barrasso’s current spot.
ABC News’ Libby Cathey and Brittany Gaddy contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Preliminary Super Tuesday exit poll results show weaknesses for Joe Biden and Donald Trump alike among independent voters while also raising questions about the extent to which supporters of Nikki Haley would turn out for Trump in November if he beats her for the Republican presidential nomination.
In sum, the findings in California, North Carolina and Virginia — the three states with exit polls on Tuesday — mark challenges facing both President Biden and former President Trump in an expected November faceoff.
Notably, 78% of Haley voters in the North Carolina Republican presidential primary, 69% in California and 68% in Virginia are unwilling to say they’ll support the party’s nominee whoever it is, mirroring Haley’s recent hedge on the issue. Just 21, 26 and 27%, respectively, take the pledge.
Moreover, as in previous primaries, large majorities of Haley voters say Trump would be unfit for office if convicted of a crime, say they’d be dissatisfied with him as the nominee and reject his claim that Biden didn’t legitimately win in 2020, a tenet of Trump’s campaign. (Trump faces 91 charges and denies all wrongdoing.)
In other signs of distance from Trump supporters, most Haley voters oppose a federal abortion ban and support a chance for most unauthorized immigrants to apply for legal status. In questions asked only in California, Haley voters overwhelmingly are dissatisfied with the 2022 Supreme Court ruling eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion and 54% disapprove of Trump’s performance as president.
In a potential boost to Biden, 48% of Haley voters in North Carolina and Virginia alike approve of his work as president; this drops to 30% in California. The question, then, is both whether some Haley voters may shift to Biden in November as well as how many will turn out for Trump if, as expected, he wins his party’s nomination.
California Senate primary
Another window on the November election is available via California’s open primary for the U.S. Senate, a so-called jungle primary in which both Democrats and Republicans run and the two top finishers on Tuesday, regardless of party, advance to the November general election.
Helpfully for Biden, among California Democrats who voted in the Senate primary, 83% in the preliminary poll results approve of how he is handling his job as president. But among independents — often swing voters in national elections — just 35% approve of Biden’s job performance while 65% disapprove. (Among Republicans, disapproval of Biden reaches a near-unanimous 92.)
Trump matches Biden in his base — 83 percent of Republicans in the Senate open primary approve of how Trump handled the job when he was president.
Among independents, however, fewer approve, 43%, while 56% disapprove. (Among Democrats, 97 percent disapprove.)
In the open primary for the seat left vacant by the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrats account for 43% of voters in these preliminary results; 37% are independents and 20% are Republicans.
The race pits three prominent Democratic lawmakers — Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Adam Schiff — against a Republican, Steve Garvey, with a question whether the Democrats split the vote in a way that opens the door to Garvey in a runoff between the top two finishers.
On another front, 60% of independents voting in the California Senate primary say they would not see Trump as fit to be president if he were convicted of a crime. And in Trump’s own party, 28% of Republicans say the same.
Beyond his approval rating, challenges for Biden are reflected in economic attitudes among California Senate primary voters. Fifty-five percent overall say the economy is in not so good or poor shape — including 66% of independents. And just 14% overall, including 11% of independents, say their family is getting ahead financially.
Neither result bodes particularly well for an incumbent president.
A risk for Trump, beyond his criminal exposure, is that 71% of Californians in the Senate open primary say they are dissatisfied or angry about the U.S. Supreme Court decision eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion — including 62% of independents and even 34% of Republicans.
Further, fewer than half of independents, 41%, think most immigrants who are in the country illegally should be deported and most independents, 66%, reject Trump’s false claim that Biden didn’t legitimately win the 2020 election.
A focus on independents is justified given their swing voter status. Trump won independents in six swing states where he defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Biden then won independents in all six of those states in 2020, moving all but North Carolina back into the Democratic column.
Nationally, presidential winners have prevailed among independents in all but three elections since 1976 (in 2012, 2004 and 1976, per exit polls).
Notable among other results
In the Republican presidential primaries, white evangelical Christians, a strong group for Trump this year, account for 52% of voters in North Carolina, dropping to 36% in Virginia and 22% in California. Very conservative voters, also especially strong for Trump, make up 39% in North Carolina, 28% in Virginia and 26% in California.
Comparisons to 2016 show that very conservative and white evangelical voters are the groups in which Trump consistently has gained the most ground.
In New Hampshire this year, he was up 20 points overall vs. 2016, but 53 points among very conservatives and 42 points among white evangelicals. In South Carolina, up 28 points overall but 55 points among very conservative and 37 points among white evangelicals. (2016 numbers aren’t available for California.)
Exit polls have been conducted in Republican contests in six states to date: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and now California, North Carolina and Virginia.
Aggregate results (proportional to turnout) show the extent to which pro-Trump groups have turned out and also mark demographic differences with general election voters, with far more conservatives, white people and white evangelicals in the GOP electorate.
Attitudinally, in aggregate, majorities of voters in these 2024 Republican primaries buy into Trump’s falsehood that Biden was not legitimately elected, favor deporting most unauthorized immigrants and say he would be fit for office even if convicted of a crime.
Fewer but still 41% favor a federal ban on abortion. And a broad 81% rate the economy negatively while 85% are dissatisfied or even angry at the way things are going in the country.
Many fewer, though, identify themselves as part of Trump’s MAGA movement.
These aggregate results conceal some differences among states — 61% in Iowa favored a federal ban on abortion, for example, while 67% in New Hampshire opposed this. And aggregate views in these six states may not reflect those among Republican voters elsewhere.
Naturally, the general election electorate next fall will be different than the makeup of Super Tuesday voters, both in California (which hasn’t voted for a Republican candidate for president since 1988) and elsewhere.
The new exit poll results nonetheless may be generally indicative of the difficulties awaiting both leading candidates.
Note that these are preliminary exit poll results. Findings may shift as results are weighted to actual vote totals, which won’t happen in California until approximately 1:30 a.m. EST. (Additionally, the California survey, while referred to here as an exit poll, was conducted by phone and email in advance of Election Day, given the preponderance of early voting in the state.)
(WASHINGTON) — Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema announced Tuesday that she is not running for reelection and will leave the Senate at the end of the year.
Sinema was elected in 2018 as a Democrat but left the party to become an independent in 2022.
In her video announcement, Sinema touted her bipartisan approach but said Americans have chosen to “retreat further to their partisan corners.”
“I believe in my approach. But it’s not what America wants right now,” she said, adding: “Because I choose civility, understanding, listening, working together to get stuff done I will leave the Senate at the end of this year.”
Sinema, who hadn’t announced her 2024 plans, was being challenged on the left by Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego and on the right by Republican Kari Lake.
Gallego released a statement Tuesday thanking Sinema for her years representing Arizona though quickly turned his attention to Lake.
“As we look ahead, Arizona is at a crossroads. Protecting abortion access, tackling housing affordability, securing our water supply, defending our democracy — all of this and more is on the line,” Gallego said. “That’s why Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike are coming together and rejecting Kari Lake and her dangerous positions. I welcome all Arizonans, including Senator Sinema, to join me in that mission.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Special counsel Jack Smith’s lead prosecutor in the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump made news last week when he told a federal judge that putting Trump on trial in the days leading up to the 2024 presidential election would not violate Justice Department policy.
The federal judge overseeing Trump’s case, Aileen Cannon, specifically pressed assistant special counsel Jay Bratt on whether presenting the Justice Department’s case to a jury as late as September or October would violate what is known as DOJ’s “60-day rule” to not take prosecutorial steps that could influence an upcoming election.
Bratt responded that the policy Cannon was referring to related to bringing indictments in the days leading up to an election, and was not relevant to the documents case for which Trump was first indicted last June.
“We are in full compliance with the Justice Manual,” Bratt said.
“Smith is saying, well, we’re not in technical violation of the rule — assuming that it’s a hard-and-fast rule — because Trump was already indicted and proceedings are ongoing already and they’re public,” said former assistant attorney general Stuart Gerson.
So, what is the “60-day rule”? And does DOJ’s broader position of avoiding steps that could have an impact on an election conflict with special counsel Smith’s efforts to bring either of his cases against Trump to trial before the 2024 election?
The DOJ’s ’60-day rule’ While Bratt’s answer to Judge Cannon made clear the government’s position that taking Trump to trial in the days leading up to an election was in compliance with the ‘Justice Manual’ containing all of DOJ’s rules and policies, the so-called ’60-day’ rule is actually nowhere to be found in the manual itself.
The most comprehensive recent explanation of the “rule” can be found in DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s June 2018 report that examined the FBI’s actions in the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server in advance of the 2016 election.
Horowitz noted the rule “is not written or described in any Department policy or regulation” but is instead described by former officials as a “general practice that informs Department decisions.”
He further pointed to then-FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before Congress that had characterized the rule as “a very important norm which is … we avoid taking any action in the run up to an election, if we can avoid it.”
“Several Department officials described a general principle of avoiding interference in elections rather than a specific time period before an election during which overt investigative steps are prohibited,” the report said.
“The purpose of the 60 day rule is to avoid Executive Branch interference in political matters — in the conduct of elections,” Gerson said. “In other words, not to influence the outcome.”
Horowitz also notably cited statements on the rule from a then-senior ranking DOJ official who is now a top assistant to Smith, Ray Hulser.
Hulser told Horowitz that there was “a sense, there still is, that there is a rule out there, that there is some specific place where it says 60 days or 90 days back from a primary or general [election], that you can’t indict or do specific investigative steps.”
“He said that there is not any such specific rule, and there never has been, but that there is a general admonition that politics should play no role in investigative decisions, and that taking investigative steps to impact an election is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and violates the principles of federal prosecution,” the report stated.
While senior officials in the department had considered making the “60-day rule” a formal policy as part of a separate memorandum issued by former attorneys general related to “Election Year Sensitivities,” Hulser said the idea was rejected as “unworkable.”
He explained prosecutors are generally expected to operate under an admonition that “politics should play no role in investigative decisions, and that taking investigative steps to impact an election is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and violates the principles of federal prosecution,” the report said.
At no point in Horowitz’s discussion of the ‘rule,’ however, was there mention of how to handle a case against a candidate who had already been indicted. The report makes clear, in fact, that the “60-day” rule was generally understood to relate to “investigative steps” or prosecutorial decisions — which would bolster Bratt’s argument that it has no application to either of Trump’s cases brought in the summer of last year.
A federal judge for the Northern District of California, Jeremy Fogel, told ABC News the “60-day rule” doesn’t apply to the federal judiciary.
“Once a case has been indicted and is in the system, as is the situation with the charges against Mr. Trump, judges are responsible for managing it in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act and other applicable legislation and court rules,” Fogel, now executive director of the University of California’s Berkley Judicial Institute, said. “Nor, do DOJ’s practices and policies have any relevance at all to how state court judges and prosecutors conduct criminal proceedings.”
DOJ broader policies regarding acts that could impact elections Beyond the “60-day” rule, however, there is debate in the legal community over whether Smith’s broader efforts to put both cases on trial prior to the 2024 election conflicts with DOJ’s longstanding position of avoiding actions that could have an impact on elections.
In recent years, various attorneys general — including Attorney General Merrick Garland — have penned memos on “Election Year Sensitivities” intended to remind prosecutors of existing policies regarding conduct surrounding elections.
“Simply put, partisan politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges,” Garland said in a memo in advance of the 2022 midterm elections. “Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
In a recent essay, former assistant attorney general Jack Goldsmith argued Smith’s “rush” to take Trump to trial clearly violates DOJ’s rules outlined by Garland.
“If this were any other defendant than Donald Trump, the rush to trial — which cannot possibly give the Trump legal team adequate time to prepare its defense — would be deemed wildly unfair. Prosecutors and judges typically give defendants significantly more temporal leeway in trials of lesser magnitude with less severe charges,” Goldsmith said. “Smith’s timing decisions clearly have a “purpose of affecting” the presidential election, at least in the sense of wanting the American people to have the benefit of his evidence and the jury’s verdict before voting in November.”
For special counsel Smith’s part — through public filings and statements from prosecutors in court, he has repeatedly avoided direct mentions of the November election as influencing his decisionmaking. Instead, he has pointed to the “public’s interest” in seeing the charges against Trump quickly resolved.
“The public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former President is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office,” Smith wrote in one brief to the Supreme Court.
In a recent interview with CNN, Garland was pressed over whether there was a certain date where holding a criminal trial for Trump so close to the election would be unacceptable.
“The cases were brought last year, the prosecutor has urged speedy trials with which I agree and it’s now in the hands of the judicial system, not in our hands,” Garland said.
That’s largely true as of last week’s developments in both of Smith’s cases against Trump. The Supreme Court’s decision to take up Trump’s argument he should be immune from prosecution in the 2020 election subversion case means that trial likely wouldn’t occur until September at the earliest, if the court rules against him. And Judge Cannon strongly indicated in the hearing last Friday that the Justice Department’s proposed rescheduling of the classified documents trial for July was also too rushed, given complicated issues regarding classified evidence in the case that could create additional weeks or months of delay.
But Gerson argued the extraordinary situation calls for more transparency from Garland on whether he approved of some of the more aggressive steps from Smith to push the cases to trial.
“I think it’s a very legitimate concern,” Gerson said. “It doesn’t matter to me that you can hide behind the “60-day rule” and say there’s no technical violation. That’s true, but to me, that doesn’t end the inquiry. It kind of starts it — which is, does it make sense in terms of national policy, where the Justice Department is supposed to be to go forward.”
(WASHINGTON) — One of the biggest Super Tuesday prizes is Texas, with its 161 delegates at stake in the Republican primary. Former President Donald Trump and former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley have campaigned recently in the state — with Trump visiting the Mexican border last week and Haley rallying in two major cities on Monday.
The sheer size and growth of Texas alone make it noteworthy: The state is the second most populous in the country, second largest by area size and saw the highest population growth in 2023, according to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau last year.
It is also home to roughly half the U.S.-Mexico border at a time when voters cite immigration as a major issue.
Trump leads Haley in Texas by more than 68 points, according to 538’s polling average, putting the former president in a position to vastly increase his delegate lead: In Texas, a candidate who wins more than half the vote in the primary earns all 161 delegates.
So what else is happening in Texas on March 5? Here are five key down-ballot races to watch:
Race to face Ted Cruz
The race to earn a one-on-one matchup with Sen. Ted Cruz has essentially come down to two Democratic contenders: Rep. Colin Allred from north Dallas and Texas State Sen. Roland Gutierrez from San Antonio.
Allred, a former NFL linebacker who flipped his district blue in 2018, is a formidable fundraiser, outraising Cruz in the latest quarter filing.
While Gutierrez, an immigration lawyer, has raked in much less money than his chief Democratic opponent, he captured national attention after the deadly Uvalde school shooting in 2022, when he outspokenly fought alongside the victims’ families for stricter gun laws both across Texas and in Washington, D.C.
Gutierrez’s congressional district includes Uvalde.
Both Democrats tout their upbringing as central to their approach should they win the nomination.
Allred highlights his underprivileged childhood in his campaign launch video, during speaking engagements, and in his online biographies.
“A fourth generation Texan, Colin was born and raised in Dallas by a single mom, who was a public school teacher and often worked two jobs to make ends meet,” his campaign website reads.
Similarly, Gutierrez, who proudly labels himself a progressive, places emphasis on being the child of Mexican immigrants, and how it informs his priorities.
“The son of Mexican immigrants, Roland has spent his whole life fighting to create real change for communities across Texas — from fixing infrastructure to fighting for stronger education. That’s exactly the kind of fight he’ll bring to the U.S. Senate,” his website says.
The winner of Tuesday’s primary will face a challenge in unseating Cruz, with his two-term incumbency advantage, national name recognition and record of fulfilling a conservative agenda in a historically red state.
Both Allred and Gutierrez have pointed to Cruz’s trip to Cancún during the statewide freeze in 2021 to argue he abandons Texans in times of need.
Each has also cited continued alignment with Trump, despite the insurrection on Jan. 6, to assert that Cruz’s reputation has been marred since his last successful run for Senate.
They note that Cruz re-clenched his seat only narrowly in 2018 against Beto O’Rourke and that the gap has narrowed even more since, to show that the senator’s strength on his seat has weakened.
Publicly, Cruz seldom mentions his challengers by name.
In what Cruz characterized to Fox News during a January interview as “a very tough reelection race in Texas,” he made a fervent appeal for support.
“The only way that we hold on is if the folks watching this show go to TedCruz.org right now, go online to TedCruz.org, make a contribution of 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 bucks because my race, my support is not from the big money, special interest in Washington, D.C., it is from constitutional conservatives across the country who go to TedCruz.org and who help give me the resources to withstand $100 million from these left wing Democrats and Marxists who are trying to invade this country and destroy this country,” he pleaded in the interview.
This admission from Cruz that he believes the Senate race is going to be close could instill confidence in and activate Democratic voters with hopes to flip the seat. But it could very well do the same for Republicans who are fighting to keep the state red.
Not Sheila Jackson Lee’s first rodeo … but will it be her last?
After losing the 2023 Houston mayoral election last November to John Whitmire, Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is battling an upstart primary challenger to keep the seat she’s held in Texas’ 18th Congressional District for almost 30 years.
Her competition: Amanda Edwards, a young, Black former Houston Council member, who has a much heftier war chest than Jackson Lee.
Jackson Lee has name recognition, a recent endorsement from President Joe Biden, and a long history of public service. However, she is coming off a landslide loss in the Houston mayor’s race that could give her supporters pause in the primary and help Edwards.
Edwards, for her part, recently ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 2020.
Edwards is around three decades younger than Jackson Lee, and with age being a hot topic of the presidential election this year, the discrepancy could dissuade some voters from choosing the elder Jackson Lee.
Tuesday will be telling if constituents in Texas’ 18th Congressional District prefer the familiar older candidate with a deep devotion to and history working alongside their community, or the buzzy new face with a fresh perspective on how to brighten the district’s future.
Is the purpling proof in the suburbs?
As Allred vies to win the Democratic nomination to unseat Cruz in the fall, 10 Democratic hopefuls are competing to replace Allred in Texas’ 32nd Congressional District, with Texas Rep. Julie Johnson and Brian Williams, a surgeon, leading the field.
Williams, a former congressional health policy advisor and local activist, has emphasized gun violence prevention and health care access as top issues in his campaign. Johnson, an attorney who has served the Texas House since 2019, is running on similar progressive priorities, such as abortion and LGBTQ+ equality. If Johnson wins, she’d be the first openly gay member of Congress from the American South.
With such a crowded field, this could very well go to a May runoff, which would be triggered if no candidate gets more than half the vote.
Texas’ 32nd Congressional District, which encompasses an area east of Dallas, could give clues to Biden’s strength in the suburbs. Biden made significant gains in the suburbs of Texas in 2020 compared to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 share. According to Pew Research Center, in contrast to Clinton’s 45% of the vote share in 2016, Biden received 54% of the vote in these areas in the last presidential election.
As evidenced by general election data, Texas’ 32nd Congressional District is just one example of gradually purpling suburbs of Texas.
Between factors such as cost of living, quality of life and safety, among others, many residents and recent transplants are heading to the outlying areas of solidly blue cities such as Austin, Houston and Dallas, and as they do so, the partisan makeup of these communities is changing.
How K-12 Texans will learn
Three of the seven State Board of Education members up for election have extreme conservatives running against them who could prioritize furthering a Republican agenda in the state’s education system made up of approximately 5.5 million public school students.
The board is comprised of 15 members who set education standards and curriculum for the entire state.
The panel is already dominated by Republicans, but adding more ultra-conservative members could affect the 2025 agenda item of approving a social studies curriculum.
And the board has a history of wielding its power to make conservative decisions that have widespread influence over K-12 students across the state.
In November 2023, the board rejected multiple proposed textbooks for eighth graders that included climate science. Texas is one of only six states that does not utilize Next Generation Science Standards, which affirms climate change and emphasizes human influence on its severity, to steer its public school science curriculum.
Taking the pulse at the border
The importance of border communities in the ongoing discourse over immigration and security was spotlighted in the week preceding Super Tuesday: both Trump and Biden visited Texas’ border with Mexico. During their visits, Biden petitioned for the passing of a bipartisan immigration bill, inviting Trump to join him in the effort, while Trump supported Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s current stringent border policies and bemoaned the recent homicide of Laken Riley that resulted in a migrant arrest, accusing Biden of having “blood” on his hands.
Republicans have closed the gap in border communities in recent cycles. Biden, for example, won 28 counties along the Texas-Mexico border in 2020 by 17 percentage points, nearly half Clinton’s share in the same counties in 2016.
In 2020, Trump saw success by flipping Zapata County, north of the Rio Grande Valley, by 5 points. The county had been secured by Clinton via a 33-point lead in 2016 and Barack Obama by 43.
Biden did win Maverick County in 2020, but only by 9 points compared to the 56-point lead claimed by Clinton in 2016.
It was undeniable in 2020 that Republicans made gains along the border, narrowing the margin between what was once Democratic dominance. It’s plausible this red momentum seen during the last election could result in flipped counties in 2024.
Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s War Cabinet, talks to the media after a meeting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at the U.S. Capitol on March 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Benny Gantz, a top political rival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is meeting with high-level officials in Washington this week, stoking speculation that the Biden administration is trying to distance itself from Israel’s far-right government.
It comes as the U.S. is stepping up pressure for urgent action to pause the fighting and deal with a worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Gantz, an influential member of the war Cabinet assembled in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, spoke with Vice President Kamala Harris and national security adviser Jake Sullivan at the White House on Monday as Harris appeared to be taking more a leading role in the administration’s escalating response.
On Sunday, she called on Hamas to agree to an “immediate cease-fire” — saying a deal is on the table — but notably also said — citing what she called the ‘immense scale of suffering” — that Israel “must do more to significantly increase the flow of aid. No excuses.”
Both meetings were closed to members of the press, although Harris posted a photo on X afterward. President Joe Biden was at Camp David preparing for his State of the Union address on Thursday.
Officials say that Gantz is also expected to speak with Secretary of State Antony Blinken behind closed doors on Tuesday, but that a face-to-face with Biden has not been scheduled.
White House spokesperson John Kirby defended the administration’s decision to host the engagements, saying they were planned at Gantz’ request and were not a slight to Netanyahu.
“A member of the war Cabinet from Israel wants to come to United States, wants to talk to us about the progress of that war, giving us an opportunity to talk about the importance of getting humanitarian assistance increased — an opportunity to talk about the importance of this hostage deal,” Kirby said. “We’re not going to turn away that sort of opportunity.”
Later on Monday, as Gantz was leaving Capitol Hill after a meeting with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, he rebuffed questions from reporters on whether the U.S. should deal with him instead of Netanyahu.
“No, no, no. Israel has a prime minister and everything is okay,” he said.
A centrist politician, Gantz’ inclusion in Israel’s war Cabinet was intended to broadcast unity in the face of an unparalleled crisis.
But as the Israeli government has struggled to fulfil its promise to eliminate Hamas and rescue hostages held in Gaza amid growing backlash over its military campaign, polling shows Netanyahu’s popularity has plummeted while Gantz’ has soared.
Netanyahu reportedly rebuked Gantz ahead of his trip, which was not authorized by the Israeli prime minister.
Although Biden said his friendship with Netanyahu has endured for more than three decades despite their political differences, opposing beliefs created distance between the two leaders even before the Israel-Hamas war began.
After Netanyahu regained control over Israel’s government, Biden did not formally invite him to visit the White House for nearly a year. Their first in-person meeting as heads of state was held on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly rather than in Washington — a move many Israeli officials saw as a snub.
Unlike Netanyahu, Gantz has signaled a willingness to hold talks with Palestinians and previously expressed support for a “two-entity solution” — a framework that mirrors the Biden administration’s aim of creating an independent Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel.
But Gantz, a retired army general and former Israeli minister of defense, is also a proponent of Israel’s military campaign against Hamas, and it was unclear whether he would be receptive to the Biden administration’s intensified push for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.
According to the vice president’s office, Harris expressed “deep concern” about humanitarian conditions in Gaza during her conversation with Gantz.
“She urged Israel to take additional measures in cooperation with the United States and international partners to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza and ensure its safe distribution to those in need,” a readout of their meeting said.
“The president and I’ve been very clear that Israel has a right to defend itself, that we have got to make sure that civilians aren’t being killed, and that we’ve got to get these hostages out and that is one of the highest priorities right now,” Harris said earlier on Monday.
Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley speaks during a campaign event in San Antonio, Texas, on Feb. 16, 2024. (Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Nikki Haley has repeatedly promised to remain in the Republican primary race against Donald Trump until Super Tuesday, which offers the last big chance for the former governor and ambassador to start catching up to the former president in delegates for their party’s 2024 nomination.
But Haley has also repeatedly hedged on her plans after Tuesday, turning the day’s results — across 15 states — into a potentially pivotal moment in the course of her campaign.
“Super Tuesday, we’re going to try to be competitive. I hope we go forward,” she said on Friday. “But this is all about how competitive we can be.”
Notably, she has no public events scheduled that day, not even the standard election night party, and will instead be back home in South Carolina to watch the results privately.
With Trump continuing to handily beat Haley in the polls, it remains unclear where she could see significant success on Tuesday or what she’ll do after that, though she has sounded skeptical of a potential third-party bid — while declining to specify, right now, if she would endorse Trump in the general election.
What has become clear in recent weeks is Haley’s argument for why other conservatives shouldn’t vote for Trump.
Among other criticism, she has said she is not sure Trump would follow the Constitution if elected a second time and warned of disaster for Republicans in November if they select him as the party’s nominee, going as far as to call such a scenario “suicide” for the country.
It’s a marked shift in tone for Haley, who initially pursued a strategy — last year — of limiting her attacks against Trump, including saying in a primary debate that she would support him as the nominee if he were convicted of a crime, which she recently walked back. (He denies wrongdoing.)
She maintained during a radio interview last month that the change in tone on Trump was intentional.
Taking on Trump
Indeed, Haley has vastly broadened the scope of her attacks against Trump — accusing him of “shifting” the GOP away from what she has said are some of the party’s core principles like cutting spending and maintaining international alliances, and questioning his fitness for office in light of his age at 77.
She has also decried Trump endorsing his daughter-in-law to become a key leader of the national Republican Party, warning over the weekend that if he succeeds, “the RNC now is just going to be about Donald Trump” and would morph into his own “legal slush fund,” which his campaign denies.
Trump has fired back, insulting Haley as a “birdbrain” and saying Democrats would prefer her to run against President Joe Biden since she’s “easy to beat.”
In trying to make her case, Haley has likened Republicans to being aboard a sinking ship and voting for her over Trump as akin to jumping in a life raft.
But that message appears to be taking on water with the voters she must win over.
The crux of her message has been that despite Trump’s success in the primaries so far, she does not believe he is a viable general election candidate as long as he is regularly losing roughly 30% to 40% of the vote in nominating contests.
Nonetheless, her electability argument was rejected in her home state of South Carolina late last month. Eighty-two percent of people surveyed in a primary exit poll said Trump was likely to win in November, versus 59% who said the same of Haley.
She has lost all but one of the nominating contests so far — securing her first victory in Washington, D.C., on Sunday night and winning 19 of its delegates with about 1,300 votes. By comparison, Trump beat Haley in South Carolina with about 452,000 votes.
And she still trails Trump by some 200 delegates — 247 to 43.
To secure the nomination, a Republican candidate needs 1,215 delegates, and 865 are up for grabs on Tuesday. The Trump campaign has insisted they are on track to clinch the nod later in March.
What Tuesday could hold
Even allies are not sure where Haley may emerge victorious — something billionaire backer Charles Koch recently signaled after his super PAC pulled its support for Haley following her loss in South Carolina, announcing it would instead focus on congressional races for Republicans.
“I can’t tell you what state she’s got a shot, you know, I don’t look at the polls and all that sort of thing,” New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, a Haley surrogate, told ABC News after introducing her at a campaign rally over the weekend in Needham, Massachusetts.
Sununu, who said Massachusetts was potentially “key” for her on Tuesday, noted that Haley is hitting the campaign trail in all of the states she can.
Asked what a win would look like on Tuesday for her campaign, he pointed to her continuing to accrue delegates rather than getting more votes than Trump, though under the party’s rules, Trump can shut her out of any delegates in places like California as long as he wins more than 50%.
Sununu said that if Haley “pulls a couple of wins out, that’s great. But the most important thing is making sure that that folks, voters, have a say, and hopefully there’s more states to come.”
Owing to her relative popularity among more moderate GOP primary voters, Haley’s best chances at securing delegates on Tuesday will likely be in states with open and semi-open contests that allow people beyond registered Republicans to participate.
A sign of her campaign’s eagerness to capitalize on those potential opportunities, Haley has spent the last week campaigning exclusively in 10 states with such primaries and released a seven-figure national cable and digital ad buy ahead of Super Tuesday. (Her campaign has more broadly touted the strength of her fundraising in recent weeks while she has gone after Trump.)
Still, Haley’s campaign has been keen to avoid putting out benchmarks, with the candidate herself saying simply she wants to be one thing: competitive.
“We think in states like Massachusetts or Colorado or Vermont, Maine, Virginia, she can come very close, perhaps in the 40% range, and that would be a win for us,” said Frank Laukien, co-chair of the pro-Haley super PAC Independents Moving the Needle.
The political action committee, which Laukien chairs along with five other businesspeople, has primarily focused on turning out moderate and independent voters who don’t typically vote in primaries, spending $1.6 million so far in supporting Haley, according to Federal Election Commission records.
“We’re very active right now in the New England states — Massachusetts in particular, but also Maine and Vermont. There is a ground game,” Laukien added, listing states that all run open and semi-open primaries.
While rules vary from state to state, Republican primaries generally allow for front-runners to secure large numbers of delegates, employing outright winner-take-all systems or awarding delegates proportionally until a candidate obtains more than 50% of the vote.
That could spell bad news for Haley in states such as California and Texas — the two largest delegate-awarding states, where Trump is currently leading by wide margins, according to 538’s polling average.
“I don’t want to talk about how long y’all think I’m gonna stay in this,” Haley told reporters ahead of a rally in Utah last week after being asked about her plans beyond Super Tuesday. “I want the conversation to be: Where are we going in the country?”
(WASHINGTON) — Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has issued an administrative stay which temporarily blocks Texas’ strict immigration law, SB 4, after the Biden administration asked the court to intervene.
The law remains blocked until March 13 at 5:00 P.M. (EDT) to give the justices time to decide how to proceed. Justice Alito also gave Texas until the evening of March 11 to respond the Biden administration’s request.
Earlier on Monday, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to vacate a stay issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that overruled an injunction granted by a lower court last Thursday that had temporarily struck down the law.
“Absent this Court’s intervention, SB4 will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. on March 10, 2024, profoundly altering the status quo that has existed between the United States and the States in the context of immigration for almost 150 years,” Justice Department lawyers said in the filing.
The law, known as SB 4, would authorize local and state law enforcement to arrest migrants they suspect crossed into the state illegally. It would also also give judges the power to order migrants to be transported to a port of entry and returned to Mexico regardless of their country of origin.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had celebrated last week’s ruling being overturned earlier in the day Monday, writing on social media, “BREAKING HUGE NEWS. Federal appeals court allows Texas immigration law to take effect. Law enforcement officers in Texas are now authorized to arrest & jail any illegal immigrants crossing the border.”
The Biden administration has argued that immigration law is solely the responsibility of the federal government, and not local jurisdictions. It repeated that assertion again in Monday’s filing with the Supreme Court.
“This Court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested ‘solely in the Federal Government,'” it wrote.
Texas has argued that it is within its rights to arrest migrants because SB 4 is applicable under the State War Clause of the Constitution, which allows states to act when it is “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Abbott has repeatedly referred to the situation at the southern border as an invasion, saying in January, “I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.”
The Justice Department said Monday that the clause “has no application here.”
“A surge of unauthorized immigration plainly is not an invasion within the meaning of the State War Clause,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar writes in the filing. “And even if it were, the Clause does not permit States to contradict the federal government’s considered response to any invasion that has occurred. Here, Congress has taken that subject fully in hand by enacting the INA, and the State War Clause does not exempt Texas from the Supremacy Clause or the preemption principles it embodies.”
In last week’s ruling, Judge David A. Ezra took a similar stance, writing, “…surges in immigration do not constitute an ‘invasion’ within the meaning of the Constitution, nor is Texas engaging in war by enforcing SB 4.”
Gov. Abbott signed the law in December, sparking outcry from immigrant civil rights organizations across the country who fear the law cannot be enforced without racially profiling migrants. If convicted under the law, first-time offenders face up to six months in jail and orders to return to Mexico. Repeat offenders can face up to 20 years in prison.Judge Ezra also wrote that the law would cause “irreparable harm” if it were to go into effect.
“If allowed to proceed, SB 4 could open the door to each state passing its own version of immigration laws,” Ezra wrote. “The effect would moot the uniform regulation of immigration throughout the country and force the federal government to navigate a patchwork of inconsistent regulations. SB 4 threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice.”
Sen.John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, speaks during a news conference following the weekly Republican caucus luncheon at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2024. (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Confirming what was long suspected, Sen. John Thune formalized his bid to replace Minority Leader Mitch McConnell as the next Senate Republican leader in an interview Monday with a news outlet in his home state of South Dakota.
Thune, in the clip, was asked by a reporter from Keloland News about whether he wanted to be the new party leader.
“Well, I hope to be, and I’m going to do everything I can to convince my colleagues,” responded Thune, who’s No. 2 in the Senate and serves as the party’s whip. “They’re the voters. They’re the ones who ultimately make the decision.”
“But that as we look at a new generation of consistent, principled, conservative leadership in the United States Senate that empowers our Senate Republicans, that puts a check and balance against … what has been a very liberal Schumer/Biden agenda, I’m prepared to lead that effort,” he continued.
McConnell, the longest-serving Senate leader in history, announced last week that he’s stepping down as the Senate Republican leader in November after serving almost two decades in the role.
“To lead my Republican colleagues has been the highest privilege,” he said. “But one of life’s most under-appreciated talents is to know when it’s time to move onto life’s next chapter.”
In his address, McConnell said he’ll finish his term as senator, which ends in 2027.
Thune is now the second Senate Republican to formally state their intentions to run, joining Sen. John Cornyn in that race.
“I believe the Senate is broken — that is not news to anyone. The good news is that it can be fixed, and I intend to play a major role in fixing it,” Cornyn said in a statement announcing his bid. “From experience, I have learned what works in the Senate and what does not, and I am confident Senate Republicans can restore our institution to the essential role it serves in our constitutional republic.”
Sen. John Barrasso is also expected to compete for the top spot.
Last week, a spokesperson for Thune’s office told ABC News that he was “reaching out to each of his colleagues directly to discuss the future of the Senate Republican Conference and what they would like to see in their next leader” but was keeping the details of those conversations private.
He has the support of Sen. Mike Rounds, who told ABC News’ This Week co-anchor Jonathan Karl on Sunday that he “is the right guy at the right time.”
“I think he will be independent enough to where — he will look out also, just like Mitch did, for the institution of the Senate itself. So I’m optimistic,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — Super Tuesday is a significant day in the presidential primary race — when 16 states total, plus the territory of American Samoa, head to the polls.
While the presidential contest will receive a good amount of the attention, there are several significant down-ballot races as well since some states hold other primaries on the same day.
Here’s what to know about Super Tuesday.
What happens on Super Tuesday? Super Tuesday — a tradition that traces back decades, which will be held this year on March 5 — is notable in the presidential race because it has the most states voting simultaneously and the most delegates up for grabs in the nominating calendar, more than one-third of the total for each party.
That could bring both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden significantly closer to clinching their respective nominations. Trump faces former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley while Biden is running against long shot challengers Rep. Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson.
The 16 states that will vote on Super Tuesday are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia.
However, Alaska will only vote on Republican candidates and Iowa is only voting on Democratic candidates.
One territory, American Samoa, will cast ballots in the Democratic race as well.
State polls close at various times beginning at 7 p.m. EST and going until 12 a.m. EST when voting ends in Alaska’s Republican contest. ABC News and 538 will have Super Tuesday results, takeaways and analysis throughout the night.
Where do things stand in the GOP presidential primary? Former U.N. Ambassador Haley will continue her effort to topple former President Trump, the front-runner — however, after a series of big losses so far (except in Washington, D.C.), it’s expected to be tough for Haley to eke out a win in any of the states on Super Tuesday.
That’s because she remains behind in the polls tracked by 538. For example, she trails Trump by more than 60 points, according to the latest 538 national average.
Tuesday’s outcome could signal the end for Haley, too.
On Friday, she hinted that decisions beyond Super Tuesday will be based on whether she’s still “competitive” in primaries and caucuses, while not defining exactly what that would look like.
Haley earned 27% of the GOP vote in Michigan last week and argued that showed a substantial minority of the Republican Party doesn’t want Trump at the helm even though he keeps winning.
Trump, however, said his win in Michigan was “far greater than anticipated.” He likewise insisted after winning South Carolina with 60% of the vote that “I have never seen the Republican Party so unified.”
Both he and Haley have been campaigning across Super Tuesday states, speaking with voters about why they should be the next commander in chief. Last week, Trump visited Texas the same day as Biden, where both discussed border policy and high immigration numbers, a major campaign issue.
How many delegates are at stake? Super Tuesday marks the day when the most delegates are at stake in the presidential primary — and strong performances from Biden and Trump could help them get closer to their party’s nomination.
On the Republican side, 865 delegates are in play out of the 2,429 total delegates. To clinch the nomination, 1,215 are needed.
California and Texas have the heftiest number of delegates with 169 and 161, respectively.
On the Democrats’ side, 1,420 delegates are up for grabs of the 3,936 pledged delegates awarded as part of the primary process. Biden would need 1,969 to earn the nomination.
California holds the most weight with Democrats, with a whopping 424 delegates.
While both Biden and Trump will work to earn the delegates, neither will be able to lock in the nomination on Super Tuesday.
What about other races? Outside of the Republican presidential primary contest, there are several down-ballot races that are getting a lot of attention.
In California, there is the primary for the Senate seat to replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who died last fall. The four leading contenders are Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee, plus Republican Steve Garvey, a former Major League Baseball player.
In North Carolina, the contest to be the next governor is taking shape with clear front-runners in both the Democratic and Republican primaries. For the GOP, it’s Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, an Army veteran and devout Christian. The front-runner for the Democrats is Attorney General Josh Stein, who has raised more funds than any candidate on either side.
In Texas, Democrats are again trying to unseat Sen. Ted Cruz — and nine candidates are running for the chance. The front-runner is Rep. Colin Allred, a former NFL player and civil rights attorney who has represented the Dallas area since 2019.
What’s next? After Super Tuesday, the GOP presidential primary will continue on with American Samoa’s contest on Friday and then four more states holding races on March 12, followed by five more on March 19.
538’s Kaleigh Rogers and Geoffrey Skelley contributed to this report.
