Politics

(WASHINGTON) — More than 2,000 people have served in the U.S. Senate since it was established in 1789. But just 12 have been Black — and only three have been Black women, none of whom have ever served together.

That could soon change. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Prince George County, Maryland, Executive Angela Alsobrooks and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) are all running for open Senate seats and hope to serve there alongside one another.

“It’s about what we bring, what we bring as Black women, that has never been part of the consistent policy debate in the United States Senate, and it’s time,” Lee told ABC News in a segment that aired Sunday on “This Week.”

In 2017, future Vice President Kamala Harris became just the second Black woman to serve in the Senate, 24 years after the first, Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, was sworn in.

Last year, following Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s death, California Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed Laphonza Butler, a prominent Democratic advocate and former labor organizer, to serve the remainder of Feinstein’s term.

Lee, who has represented Oakland, California, in the U.S. House since 1998, is running in a very competitive primary for the seat currently held by Butler.

“I have been in the House for many years. But it’s time for me to go to the Senate to be one of 100 because I truly believe that the perspective that I bring, the lens that I bring, is lacking in the United States Senate,” she said.

Lee recalled a conversation with Moseley Braun about the importance of representing all views and experiences in the Senate.

“[Moseley Braun] mentioned certain diseases that are unique to African Americans and people of color, lupus for example, no one would bring these issues up unless you understand them from your background and perspective,” Lee said. “What happens with representation is that not only new ideas, new experiences and new solutions come to the table — but you help strengthen the entire country because we want everyone to be able to participate in this democracy.”

Lee began her political career working for Shirley Chisholm’s 1972 presidential campaign. She credits Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to Congress, with convincing her to register to vote.

“I didn’t believe that the Democrats or Republicans were understanding the needs and the aspirations of myself as a young single mom. And she said, ‘Look, we need your voice. We need you on the inside … we need you to come help shake things up,'” Lee recalled. “I saw how she had to deal with the power structure and how oftentimes everyone was against her. But she stayed the course and she was bold.”

Primary polls show Lee trailing her fellow Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff and Katie Porter and Republican Steve Garvey ahead of the state’s primary on March 5, with only the top two candidates advancing to the general election in the fall.

Asked about the challenges Black women encounter in running for office, Lee said they are frequently systemic.

“When you look at fundraising, for example, we have got to get to public financing of campaigns, we’ve got to overturn [the Supreme Court ruling in] Citizens United and get the ‘dark money’ out of campaigns. Because it’s not a level playing field, when you look at the wealth gap, for example, in the Black community,” Lee said. “The system oftentimes, and that’s one thing Shirley Chisholm reminded me of, it’s not built and made for the participation of certain people who have been shut out for so long. But as Dr. Maya Angelou said, ‘And still we rise,’ and so we have within us the desire and the passion, and the commitment to overcome these obstacles.”

“And that’s what you’ve seen historically, with Black women, overcoming these obstacles and fighting for our democracy,” Lee said.

Lee is perhaps best known as the sole member of Congress to vote against the military authorization for the invasion of Afghanistan, three days after the September 11th attacks. She said at the time that she wanted the country to avoid becoming entangled in a larger cycle of bloodshed.

“I was called a traitor. People were calling my telephone, leaving gun shots on voicemail, it was terrible. I had to have security and the death threats and the threats to my personal safety and my family was overwhelming. However, sometimes when you’re in public life, if you’re a public servant, you know the risks,” Lee said. “You have to be able to withstand the political pressure, and that’s why I want to be in the Senate, because there are gonna be some hard debates and some hard fights in the Senate in the next few years. And in fact, I don’t back down when I know that that’s the right position, even if it goes against my party.”

In Maryland, Alsobrooks is running for the seat held by retiring Sen. Ben Cardin.

“I recognize the power of the federal government, the infrastructure dollars, the health care access that we’ve been working to build here, and I realized how important it is to have individuals in those positions who are fighting hard for the people they represent and who understand them,” Alsobrooks told ABC News.

She is up against Rep. David Trone, D-Md., a wealthy, self-financed candidate in the May 14 primary, but has the endorsement of half of Maryland’s congressional delegation.

If she wins the primary, she could go head-to-head with popular former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan in the general election, who just announced he was entering the race.

Like Lee, Alsobrooks described some of her strengths in terms of her personal background.

“I was the first woman elected as prosecutor here, I was the first woman to be elected as county executive — and what that has meant is that I have brought to bear solutions that are very different, they are based not only on my professional experience but lived experience,” Alsobrooks said. “I think it’s important to have people representing you who live like you, who can think like the people they represent and who understand and share the cares and concerns of the people they represent.”

Alsobrooks has been very close with Vice President Harris ever since they connected in 2010, she said.

“It has been a really wonderful relationship that we have developed,” she said of Harris. “She’s been in many of the spaces before me, if you think about it, as the first-ever [Black woman] district attorney elected in San Francisco, one of the youngest, the same experience that I’ve had here.”

Asked what lessons she’s taken away from Harris, Alsobrooks said, “It is not as important that you’re the first at something, it is that you create the kind of record and create the kind of roadway so that others can be successful too.”

“You are not truly successful until you’ve made someone else successful,” she said.

Blunt Rochester serves alongside Lee in the House. In 2017, she became the first woman and Black person to represent the state of Delaware in Congress.

“I had never run for anything in my life,” Blunt Rochester told ABC News about her decision to launch that original campaign. “I was over 50 when I decided to run, and I had just been widowed… and I said, ‘You know what, I’m still alive, I can still serve and I decided to run for office and in a six week primary, you know, beat five guys.'”

Blunt Rochester is favored to win November’s election. If elected, she would become the first woman and person of color to represent Delaware in the Senate.

“I think about the little girls, I think about those women who have been widowed or who are over 50,” she said. “For me to be able to represent and bring those lived experiences, the professional experiences, the policy issues. I mean, we know that Black women die from childbirth more than their white counterparts [and] have 43% more student loan debt than our white counterparts.”

“I don’t really think about the history so much because, you know, my intention is to make a difference and to have an impact on people’s lives,” Blunt Rochester added, “and should there be a history making moment, that’s great.”

The Delaware congresswoman shares a close relationship with President Joe Biden. She endorsed him the day he launched his White House bid in 2019 and serves as a national co-chair of his reelection campaign.

“When my dad unexpectedly passed away from leukemia, President Biden called when we were all taking care of dad during hospice … He and the first lady came to the visitation at the church for 45 minutes and spent time with us,” Blunt Rochester reflected. “I was holding it all together … But there was something about him, looking at my face, and saying, ‘It’s going to be OK, kid,’ and that just made me lose it. I just fell into his arms crying.”

If just two of these candidates win, they could make even more history, as the Senate has never had multiple Black women serve at the same time.

“I’m very proud of Congresswoman Barbara Lee, I’m very proud of Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester. They are just really dynamic women. They’re warm, they’re purposeful and so it’s been an honor to run in the same year,” Alsobrooks said.

Lee said she’s spoken to both Alsobrooks and Blunt Rochester about the history they could make serving together.

“We say ‘one is not enough’ — all of us need to be elected to the United States Senate,” she said.

Blunt Rochester said working alongside women who share some of her lived experiences “is always a good thing, particularly when times are hard.”

“You think about Shirley Chisholm in this moment, where she said, ‘If they don’t give you a seat at the table, you bring a folding chair,'” Blunt Rochester said. “Well, maybe we’ll have many folding chairs.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) —  John Hoge has run a family-owned sporting goods business in Long Island, New York, for decades, selling kayaks and paddle boards imported mainly from China.

In 2019, Hoge said, the company faced an emergency. Then-President Donald Trump imposed a 25% tariff on the vast majority of the company’s products, said Hoge, co-owner of Sea Eagle Boats.

“We had shipments that were already on the water waiting to get in port that suddenly were 25% more expensive,” Hoge told ABC News, saying the added cost forced him to raise prices. “It was jarring.”

Even after receiving an exemption from the tariffs, his company shifted most of its supply chain out of China as a precaution, Hoge said. Either way, Hoge added, the business has never sourced products from the U.S.

“This is not an industry that had a substantial U.S. presence and fired everyone. It never existed here,” Hoge said, noting that domestic manufacturing for these products would bring added costs and higher prices.

“If you want to involve the American middle class in the outdoors, you need products that the American middle class can afford,” Hoge said.

On the campaign trail, Trump has vowed to escalate the trade war initiated during his first term. However, studies have shown that his trade policies fell short of promises made to rejuvenate U.S. manufacturing and spur job growth. In some cases, analysts told ABC News, the policies harmed U.S. producers while raising prices for consumers.

A heightened trade war over a long period could expand certain areas of U.S. manufacturing, some analysts said. But, they added, the move would come at significant cost for consumers already worn out by inflation.

“The tariffs raised costs for American businesses and raised some prices for American consumers,” Inu Manak, a fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, told ABC News. “And there’s quite a bit more Trump could do.”

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Stephen Moore, who previously served as an economic adviser to Trump and says he has helped shape Trump’s 2024 agenda, previously told ABC News that escalating tariffs would hinder foreign producers and make domestic industries more competitive.

In turn, the policy would create jobs and boost manufacturing in the U.S., Moore said.

“Trump wants jobs here in America,” Moore added. “He wants things made in America.”

During his tenure, Trump placed tariffs on aluminum and steel from a host of countries, including Mexico, Canada and the European Union.

Meanwhile, he taxed hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods from China, raising import costs for everything from shoes to BMX bikes to computer chips.

In all, the U.S. levied tariffs on thousands of products valued at approximately $380 billion in 2018 and 2019, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Tax Foundation.

Trump’s tariffs decreased U.S. employment by 166,000 jobs, the group found, citing increased import costs for U.S. employers.

A nonpartisan working paper released by a global team of researchers last month focused on the consequences wrought for the Midwest. The study found little effect on jobs in the region in industries directly affected by the tariffs, while noting a slight decline in employment as a result of retaliatory tariffs placed on U.S. goods.

When asked about the trade war’s objectives of job creation and rejuvenated manufacturing, Mary Lovely, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said, “There’s no evidence that it achieved these goals.”

On the other hand, the tariffs hiked prices for some U.S. goods, since many U.S. importers passed the elevated costs along to consumers, Lovely said.

Tariffs placed on washing machines in 2018, for instance, raised the price of these appliances by 12%, according to a working paper from researchers at the University of Chicago and the Chicago Federal Reserve.

To be sure, the measures have succeeded in reducing the share of U.S. imports that come from China, though the trend has coincided with an increase in share from Mexico and Vietnam, which some analysts attribute to the use of those countries as a pass-through for Chinese goods.

President Joe Biden, for his part, has kept many of the tariffs in place.

Ken Fritz, who works at North Carolina-based manufacturer Marsh Cabinets, said he welcomes further tariffs as a means of protecting U.S. cabinet producers against low-cost Chinese alternatives.

He criticized Chinese firms for flooding the market with cheap cabinets, saying those companies have found ways to circumvent tariffs imposed in 2019. American importers may suffer under tariffs, Fritz acknowledged; but he said observers shouldn’t overlook U.S. manufacturers that face unfair competition from abroad.

“What about the manufacturers that have to close their doors, that lose thousands of jobs?” Fritz said. “The climate needs to continue to be pro-American-made products.”

Trump has recently vowed to expand the trade war if he takes office next year, promising to impose tariffs on most imported goods. Speaking with Fox Business in August, Trump said the tax on imported items could ultimately stand at 10%.

Earlier this month, when asked by Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo whether he would consider implementing a 60% tariff on Chinese goods, Trump said: “No, I would say maybe it’s going to be more than that.”

Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University, said such a policy would dramatically impact the U.S. economy, sending prices skyward while helping some domestic industries and hurting others.

“Imposing a 60% tariff would turn a fence into essentially an impenetrable barrier,” Prasad told ABC News. “It would shut the U.S. out of the global trading system.”

“There could be some benefits in terms of employment growth in the U.S.,” He added. “But overall, history shows restricting trade can end up having negative consequences that far outweigh positive ones in terms of employment growth in domestic industries.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Reacting to a controversial new Alabama Supreme Court ruling that embryos should be considered people under the law, Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth said on Sunday that she was “devastated” for how this could affect treatments like in vitro fertilization.

She also called out conservatives whom she suggested were being disingenuous in distancing themselves from the case.

“Let’s make it clear: Republicans will say whatever they need to say to try to cover themselves on this, but they’ve been clear and Donald Trump has been the guy leading this effort to eliminate women’s reproductive rights and reproductive choice,” Duckworth, an Illinois lawmaker, told ABC News “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz. “And so this is the next step.”

Referring to her Access to Family Building Act, which would guarantee access to IVF and other reproductive services, Duckworth added, “It’s been crickets since the Alabama ruling … not a single Republican has reached out to me on the bill. I’ve introduced a bill, multiple times, now multiple Congresses — but frankly, let’s see if they vote for it when we when we bring it to the floor.”

Duckworth understands firsthand the fertility challenges many women face. After years of trying to have children, she turned to IVF, eventually having two daughters because of the procedure. She even made history in 2018 by becoming the first senator to have a child, her second daughter, while serving in the chamber.

She reflected on her experience with IVF on “This Week” in describing the potential ramifications of the Alabama ruling by the all-Republican state Supreme Court.

“The decision is very clear that a fertilized egg is a child, is a human being, which means that for example in my case, when we have five fertilized eggs and three were non-viable. When my doctor discarded those with my consent — that would be considered potentially manslaughter or murder,” Duckworth said.

Alabama’s attorney general has said he won’t prosecute IVF providers or families who use the treatment, but some Alabama clinics have already halted their IVF services over fears the court ruling creates new legal risks for the clinics, doctors and patients.

“Republicans have put the rights of a fertilized egg over the rights of the woman. And that is not something that I think the American people agree with,” Duckworth said Sunday.

Trump and other leading Republicans have come out in support of IVF since the Alabama court ruling — “We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies not harder,” Trump said last week — but they have not said, specifically, how the law should change regarding whether embryos are people.

Some previous Republican proposals on reproductive rights also did not include exceptions for IVF.

Duckworth on Sunday linked the latest ruling to the decadeslong push to restrict abortion, which led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversing Roe v. Wade in 2022, after Trump named three conservative-leaning justices to the bench.

Going into the 2024 presidential campaign, Duckworth argued, “This is what we’re going to be talking about.”

“We’re going to talk about the fact that Donald Trump is the guy and Republicans have been working literally for years to take away your reproductive choice, which includes access to IVF for people struggling to start families,” she said.

In the wake of Trump’s latest double-digit win in the GOP primary race, in South Carolina on Saturday, Duckworth, a co-chair of President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, said their message will be to contrast him with Trump, who is hammering at Biden over inflation, immigration and foreign policy.

“Donald Trump has been very clear about what he’s doing. He’s not running for president for the American people. He’s not running for president to take care of working families. He’s running for president for himself,” Duckworth said.

She also blamed Trump for the failure of a bipartisan border package in the Senate despite “compromise” from both parties, calling it a “knife” in the back of Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, who worked for months to broker the deal — only to have Trump and some other conservatives dismiss it as insufficient and weak.

“When we gave Republicans what they wanted, it was Donald Trump who killed the compromise,” Duckworth said.

When pressed by Raddatz on whether she would support Biden taking executive action that would make it harder for migrants to claim asylum — something that is under consideration and likely to draw backlash from progressive Democrats — Duckworth said she was in favor of that because of the “crisis” at the border.

She also highlighted provisions in the failed border package that would have allowed asylum-seekers to work while their cases were being adjudicated.

“There was stuff that fixed the border problems but also allowed us to let to be humane about how we take care of the migrants who are here,” she said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s national security adviser on Sunday pushed Speaker Mike Johnson to put a bipartisan Senate foreign aid bill to a vote in the House, arguing that doing so could help turn the tide in Ukraine’s war against Russia’s invasion.

“This is one of those instances where one person can bend the course of history. Speaker Johnson, if he put this bill on the floor, would produce a strong bipartisan majority vote in favor of the aid to Ukraine. We saw that in the Senate,” Jake Sullivan told ABC News “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

“So it comes down to one person, Speaker Johnson. Will he put the bill on the floor? I have spoken with him personally. He has indicated that he would like to get the funding for Ukraine. He’s trying to figure out a way to do it. Right now, it comes down to his willingness to actually step up to the plate and discharge his responsibility at this critical moment,” Sullivan said. “And history is watching.”

Johnson has voiced support for Ukraine but helped lead opposition to the Senate legislation that combined funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan with significantly increased border restrictions over criticism that the immigration changes were insufficient.

There is also growing conservative skepticism about the value of sending more aid to Ukraine over domestic issues like the border.

While the Senate deal languishes, some House Republicans have proposed a similar but alternative bill. It’s unclear if either proposal will get a vote soon.

“The Republican-led House will not be jammed or forced,” Johnson told reporters earlier this month after the Senate legislation passed that chamber.

Sullivan, on Sunday, said U.S. support has been and would likely continue to be vital to Ukraine’s stand against Russia, two years into its war, which has morphed into a stalemate as both sides press for a breakthrough.

“Ukraine stands. It stands as a proud, free democracy, but it is still continuing to fight against a vicious Russian onslaught in the east. And for that, it needs weapons, it needs ammunition and it needs resources from countries like the United States,” Sullivan said on “This Week.”

“This is not about a shortage of will, Martha. This is about a shortage of bullets,” he told Raddatz.

Citing her own reporting from Ukraine, Raddatz pressed Sullivan on Ukraine’s major counteroffensive last year, which was unsuccessful. Raddatz said the Ukrainians felt it was “because they did not have the training and the war fighting equipment they wanted.”

“I can understand the frustration and the pain that they are going through,” Sullivan acknowledged before defending the U.S. response, saying an American-led coalition of countries “delivered to Ukraine all of the pieces of equipment, all of the shells, all of the rockets that they’ve requested in advance of their counteroffensive.”

Raddatz also pressed Sullivan on America’s apparently incremental approach to providing some major munitions, such as Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter jets, which the U.S. had initially said Ukraine didn’t need before later reversing course.

“If you look at the sum total of what the United States is provided to Ukraine in this fight, it is an incredible quantity of material delivered at speed, at scale, outpacing the expectations of anyone,” Sullivan said.

“So the idea that we did not mobilize a massive quantity of resources and capabilities to deliver to the Ukrainians simply doesn’t wash,” he maintained.

Of the fighter jets, specifically, Sullivan said, “There aren’t very many Ukrainian pilots to be able to pilot those aircraft. It’s not about whether or not F-16s could possibly have been on the battlefield in the spring of last year.”

Sullivan also defended 500-plus new sanctions against Russia, targeting various people and entities, after the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in an Arctic penal colony, which the U.S. blames on Vladimir Putin. (The Kremlin denies this.)

Raddatz asked about the strategy behind continued sanctions, if previous penalties have not sufficiently deterred Russia, and why it took so long to punish the new targets revealed last week.

Sullivan said sanctions are intended to “drive down Russia’s access to revenue,” as well as to starve “the Russian defense industrial base” and to hold specific people “accountable” for Navalny’s death.

“They can contribute to a strategic result and we are going to stay patient and resolved and relentless in the application of these sanctions,” Sullivan said.

He played down questions about the timing of the new targets, which he said are continually being assessed.

“This is the latest turn of the crank,” he said, “and there will be more.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A coalition of countries led by the U.S. and U.K. on Saturday carried out a new round of strikes on the Houthis in Yemen “in response to the Houthis’ continued attacks against commercial and naval vessels” in and around the Red Sea, officials said.

According to a joint statement from the eight countries involved, the strikes were against 18 targets, including those related to “underground weapons storage facilities, missile storage facilities, one-way attack unmanned aerial systems, air defense systems, radars, and a helicopter.”

“These precision strikes are intended to disrupt and degrade the capabilities that the Houthis use to threaten global trade, naval vessels, and the lives of innocent mariners in one of the world’s most critical waterways,” the joint statement reads.

It continues: “The Houthis’ now more than 45 attacks on commercial and naval vessels since mid-November constitute a threat to the global economy, as well as regional security and stability, and demand an international response.”

The U.S. has targeted dozens of Houthi locations already this year. Six countries supported the U.S. and U.K. in Saturday’s strikes: Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand.

In his own statement, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said, in part: “We will continue to make clear to the Houthis that they will bear the consequences if they do not stop their illegal attacks, which harm Middle Eastern economies, cause environmental damage, and disrupt the delivery of humanitarian aid to Yemen and other countries.”

The Houthis have said their attacks are in response to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza while targeting Hamas in retaliation for Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attack, which sparked a war.

The U.S. has publicly stressed that it hopes to prevent that conflict from spilling out into the region and described its own strikes in Yemen as de-escalatory.

Still, the tit-for-tat pattern that has been established has also raised questions about the immediate effectiveness and long-term goals of the U.S. strategy regarding the Houthis.

“We’ve got to be thoughtful about our approach in these areas, and we can’t predict exactly how any one of these groups is going to respond,” Gen. CQ Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz in an exclusive interview in January. “And so we’ve got to make sure we look at the key partner force protection, but also the ability to take away their capability.

“And we don’t want to go down a path of greater escalation that drives to a much broader conflict, within the region,” Brown said.

He told Raddatz then that the American airstrikes have “had an impact” on the Houthis’ ability to continue carrying out missile and drone attacks, though he declined to say by how much.

ABC News’ Luis Martinez and Meghan Mistry contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(COLUMBIA, S.C.) — Former President Donald Trump said he was speaking to President Joe Biden’s worst nightmare while courting Black conservatives at the Black Conservative Federation Gala in Columbia, South Carolina: “Hundreds of proud Black conservative American patriots.”

Trump spent the night using racially charged sentiments by suggesting he has strengthened his appeal to Black Americans by claiming they relate to his multiple criminal indictments.

“I got indicted a second time and a third time and a fourth time and a lot of people said that that’s why the Black people like me because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against. And they actually viewed me as I’m being discriminated against. It’s been pretty amazing,” Trump said to applause.

He continued, asserting that Black people are starting to turn to him because “what’s happening to me, happens to them,” centering his appeal to Black voters by equating his criminal prosecutions to the historic discrimination Black Americans have faced.

“I think that’s why the Black people are so much on my side now because they see what’s happening to me happens to them. Does that make sense?”

Trump is charged with 91 felony counts and faces charges including racketeering, conspiracy to obstruct justice and falsifying business records.

Throughout the evening, Trump portrayed himself as a victim of an unjust criminal justice system which he said appeals to Black voters, especially in the Fulton County election interference case, where he was ordered to take a mugshot.

“My mug shot, we’ve all seen the mug shot. And you know who embraced it more than anybody else: the Black population. It’s incredible,” he said.

Trump’s comments come as he also likened himself to Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in the wake of Navalny’s death, saying the more than $350 million in penalties he faces in his New York civil fraud trial are a “form of Navalny.”

Trump was joined on stage by the leaders of the organization as well as some of his Black political allies, including Reps. Byron Donalds and Wesley Hunt and his former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson who engaged with him repeatedly as he made off-the-cuff remarks.

“These lights are so bright in my eyes that I can’t see too many people out there. But I can only see the Black ones. I can’t see any white ones. You see, that’s how far I’ve come. That’s how far I’ve come,” Trump said, quipping about a racial stereotype that Black people can’t be seen in the dark as the lawmakers laughed behind him.

The ballroom was mainly filled with Black Republicans who seemed to enthusiastically cheer the former president on from their dinner tables.

“That’s real,” Kevin McGaray told ABC News. “We get picked on all the time unnecessarily and, and he understands what that feels like now, so there’s a connection.”

McGary is a Black Republican from San Francisco. He voted for Trump in 2020 and 2016.

“I appreciate the track record that he has with the Black community,” he said. “Everything he did was on point for communities of color. So I appreciate that.”

Meanwhile onstage, Trump touted his policy appeals to the room which included boasting about his help in securing the passage of the First Step Act, a bipartisan criminal justice bill, and claimed he was able to help economic growth in the Black community.

Voters like Karqueta Lindsey from Raleigh, North Carolina, don’t like the way he compares his legal troubles to Black Americans. However she tells ABC News that his “words” on race are not a deal breaker.

“I’m not saying that everything that Donald Trump says that I’m for it, but I’m not for 100% of what any politician says,” Lindsey said. “I am pro-life and the borders need to be secured. So those are things that affect me, not the words.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — South Carolina is set to hand former President Donald Trump a landslide victory in its GOP presidential primary Saturday, dealing former Gov. Nikki Haley another setback in her home state.

Trump is on an apparent glide path to his third straight GOP White House nomination, having handily won nominating contests so far in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. Haley, meanwhile, has yet to come close to winning any of those states, with the rest of the calendar looking equally foreboding, polling shows.

Still, she insists she will carry on at least through early March.

Here are three things to watch in South Carolina’s primary.

How big is Trump’s margin of victory?

Virtually every Republican operative in South Carolina predicts Trump will win the state’s primary. The only question is by how much.

538’s polling average has the former president up by 30 points, a margin that, if true, would land a devastating blow to Haley in her home state, which she led as governor for six years.

Haley has nodded toward the likelihood that Trump will win big in South Carolina, maintaining that she will stay in the race through Super Tuesday on March 5. Still, such a loss would cut into whatever momentum her campaign still has.

On the flip side, Trump’s consistent polling lead has produced such sky-high expectations that Haley could claim any performance beating them could warrant her staying in the race.

Cue the drop out chatter

Should Haley get washed out as expected, the ongoing talk about when she may suspend her campaign will likely ramp up to 11.

Already, strategists have publicly and privately wondered what value Haley sees in staying in given her recent defeats and the daunting path ahead. When Haley advertised a major speech on Tuesday, Republicans thought the long-awaited announcement had come.

Instead, the former governor defied calls for her departure.

“South Carolina will vote on Saturday. But on Sunday, I’ll still be running for president. I’m not going anywhere,” she said.

Haley continued her defiant tone against Trump, saying she does not fear for her political future.

“Well, I’m not afraid to say the hard truths out loud. I feel no need to kiss the ring. And I have no fear of Trump’s retribution. I’m not looking for anything from him,” she said. “My own political future is of zero concern.”

What’s next?

There is a small handful of races between Saturday’s primary and Super Tuesday, but March 5 is easily the next big date on the calendar.

Fifteen states will hold their nominating contests that day, and 36% of all delegates (874 out of 2,429) will be awarded.

Some of those states allow Democrats and independents to participate in their primaries and caucuses, a dynamic Haley has highlighted to suggest she could see a modicum of success then, given her inability to win over big enough swaths of Republicans so far.

Still, polling doesn’t show her near Trump in any state voting that day, and while Haley has insisted that her campaign will live on beyond South Carolina, she has said less about what comes after Super Tuesday should she fall even further behind.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Laura McGarraugh, an emergency room nurse from Austin, Texas, is confident Democrats will replace President Joe Biden atop their ticket this year. She’s just not sure with whom.

Speaking to ABC News at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, a longtime Republican cattle call that in recent years has morphed into a far-right watering hole, McGarraugh simply said Biden would be replaced with “anybody that’s not dead.”

When pressed on if she actually thinks Biden is dead, she simply replied, “don’t you?”

“You don’t have to be a doctor or nurse,” added McGarraugh, sporting an American flag tank top. “You just have to have eyes.”

Such sentiments were common here, where attendees were decked out in clothing supporting former President Donald Trump’s comeback bid and listening to a steady stream of red meat.

The conference, whose motto this year is “where globalism goes to die,” featured panels titled, “Would Moses Go To Harvard?” and “Cat Fight? Michelle vs. Kamala,” which showcased speakers who were adamant that Biden would be replaced as Democrats’ presidential nominee at the party’s convention this year.

“It does us no good to live in wishful thinking fantasyland to think that Democrats don’t have a plan,” said podcaster Monica Crowley, who warned the crowd that former first lady Michelle Obama would supplant him on the ticket this November, even though, “I don’t know how realistic any of this is.”

Larry O’Connor, a radio host on the same panel, instead predicted that Vice President Kamala Harris would ascend as president once he resigns at the convention, winking at the conspiracy that Obama would not fall under the category of a “female president.”

Conversations with over a dozen attendees reflected similar discussions: debate over who would replace Biden but near consensus that the president will appear on their ballots later this year.

“I know they have a plan because they always do, and I’m sure it’s been in place for a long time. I don’t see how he could possibly win. So, I guess I’m leaning towards they will replace him,” said Vanessa Alban, a homemaker from Ocean City, Md.

Theories about Trump’s presidency and the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot also abounded.

Democrats and many Republicans in Washington have said Trump lost the 2020 election and that the mob amounted to an insurrection — statements that were batted away or mocked within the halls of the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center.

“Welcome to the end of democracy!” declared right-wing personality Jack Posobiec. “We’re here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there on Jan. 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this right here.”

Even now, CPAC attendees and organizers painted a dour picture of a “deep state” intent on not only kneecapping Trump’s campaign but also holding down his supporters.

“Well, look at all the J6 prisoners that haven’t had a fair trial. I mean, they’re rotting in jail. And they’ve been there for how many years? Let’s get serious,” said Thomas Siens, an economist from Fort Worth, Texas. “They’re just picking and choosing who they want to go after.”

“It was a Trump rally that people went there to support the president,” added Jon Linowes, who designed a digital pinball game based on the riot on display at the conference’s vendor hall which boasted in-game alerts like, “it’s a setup,” “stop the steal,” “Babbitt Murder,” and “peaceful protest,” among others.

“In any large event, there may be some troublemakers. Whether they were in this case planted by government agencies, or actually right wing troublemakers and things happen, but that was certainly not Trump’s intent.”

The fuel behind the rhetoric is Trump himself, said Joseph Uscinski, a professor at the University of Miami specializing in conspiracy theories.

The former president had a stranglehold over the crowd here, with speaker after speaker invoking his name to standing ovations from attendees enthralled with his anti-establishment message.

“He continued playing that anti-establishment card throughout the general election in 2016 through now. So, he’s not just trying to attract people who don’t like Democrats or are Republicans or are conservatives, but he’s trying to attract people who have antagonisms towards the establishment as a whole,” said Uscinski. “He talks about how everything is rigged. He’s attracting people who already have these ideas.”

“So, now that he’s built this audience of people who are already predisposed to such sentiment, he and his confidantes and other Republicans who just have to fall in line with what the former president says are engaging in that rhetoric, too … there’s been a sea change in the rhetoric coming from the Republican Party largely due to this.”

To be certain, the ideas espoused at CPAC are not the sole perspective of the GOP writ large — but they surely resound loudly, as they represent some of Trump’s most unflinching, unwavering “warriors.”

Even still, the ballroom that hosted the conference’s main speakers was pockmarked with empty seats. The popular “media row,” where radio and television personalities and others line up for broadcasts, was noticeably shorter — a sign, some strategists said, of the conference’s shifting priorities.

“CPAC is the Stak Trek convention of politics, with just as much merchandising and cosplay,” said Doug Heye, a former top Republican National Committee staffer.

“CPAC was always a great place for conservatives to gather, debate and exchange ideas from all over the country,” added Chip Saltsman, who worked on former Vice President Mike Pence’s now-shuttered 2024 bid. “The last year seems more like a one-way street for conservatives to come for affirmation rather than challenge one another on the issues of the day so that we can unite the party and the movement to win in November.”

But CPAC’s current strategy appeared to be by design.

The conference where Ronald Reagan once debuted his “city on a hill” vision, CPAC bragged in recent years about not sending invitations to lawmakers like Sen. Mitt Romney, the Utah Republican and Capitol Hill dealmaker. This year, the conference denied media credentials to “left-wing” outlets.

“If you call yourself a journalist where you spend all your time trying to destroy America and trying to destroy Americans who love America and trying to destroy conservatives and patriots and people from MAGA, and yes, J6, if that’s what you do, we don’t want you here,” CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp said.

That strategy serves a dual purpose, per Uscinski: convincing loyal Republican voters that those theories are true while keeping people already in the GOP’s right flank in the fold.

“I’m not shocked if there are non-conspiratorial Republicans who might buy into some of the things that Trump says that are conspiratorial, simply for the fact that it’s the leader of the Republican Party saying it. So, they’re not believing it because they’re conspiracy theorists, they’re believing it because these are the party cues coming down from up on high,” Uscinski said.

“But I think a lot of what explains what’s going on is the coalition is different, the audience is different, they like different tunes, and the people who are going to play the tunes for them are going to have to play the right ones.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(CHARLESTON, S.C.) — Brian Gray, a black South Carolinian, said he isn’t affiliated with a particular political party, but has tended to vote more blue than red. He has one exception: Nikki Haley.

Gray said he voted for her the two times that she ran to be South Carolina’s governor. And, in early February, Gray said he was considering voting for her again in her quest for the presidency.

“I think she has a better chance of beating Biden than Trump,” Gray told ABC News. “She understands people in South Carolina. I think she’ll understand the people of the nation.”

Three weeks later, however, Gray said he’s not feeling heard by the Republican Party and now he’s not sure who he’ll vote for. He told ABC News he feels let down by the Democratic Party and ignored by Republicans such as Haley and former President Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination.

“I’m gonna vote in the general election, but I’m uncommitted to who I’m going to vote for,” he said.

Gray owns the popular restaurant Railroad BBQ in Columbia, South Carolina, and although he initially liked Haley for her tax breaks for small businesses, he isn’t impressed with her outreach to the Black community.

Haley is facing an uphill battle in her home state against Trump. In South Carolina, she’s polling 30 points behind the former president, according to 538’s national polling average.

In order to close the wide gap, Haley has encouraged anyone who hasn’t voted in the Democratic primary to vote for her in the Republican primary. This would, of course, include Democrats.

In South Carolina, 60% of the Democratic Party’s registered voters are Black, according to the state’s Democratic Party. As Haley looks to court Democrats, she will need Black voters’ support, too.

According to Gray, Haley’s comments on race make her a “hard sell.”

Haley has claimed America has “never been a racist country.” In New Hampshire, when asked what was the cause of the Civil War, she refused to say it was slavery.

However, while at a Politics and Pints event in Charleston on Feb. 5, she admitted there is an “element of racism” in America.

“There is always an element of racism. Our goal is how do we make it better today than it was yesterday,” she said.

The former governor often touts her response to the 2015 racially motivated mass shooting on nine black Americans at Charleston’s Mother Emanuel AME Church. Five days after the shooting, she demanded the Confederate flag be taken down from the state capitol’s grounds. One month later, it was gone — no small feat for a state like South Carolina that takes pride in its southern identity.

But when she talks about the attacks on the trail, instead of referring to the shooter as racist, she calls him a “hater.”

“We brought down a divisive symbol that had been dividing our state for a long time. I didn’t judge either side,” Haley said Monday on her bus tour. “I didn’t say who was good or who was bad or who was right or who was wrong. Because that’s not what leaders do.”

PrimaryPivot, a SuperPAC focused on weakening Trump by encouraging voters across the political spectrum to vote in the Republican primaries, has been actively campaigning for Haley.

They claim they have participated in “grassroots” efforts with the Black community.

“We have to reach Black voters where we are, and so I’ve done a lot of street canvassing, and spoke at different events that Black voters attend,” Tiffany James, a senior adviser to the group, told ABC News.

Haley hasn’t lost all of her appeal in the Black community. Yvonne Bradley, a Democrat who voted for Biden, told ABC News that although she didn’t vote for Haley when she ran for governor, she did a lot of things “I can live with.”

“She had a few things that I didn’t agree with, but that’s just typical of every candidate. We don’t agree 100%, but a lot of things she did I can live with,” she said.

But many voters tell ABC News that her views on race make it impossible for her to earn their support. Harry and Darlene Preston, a married couple, said they appreciate her presence in the race as it gives voters an alternative from Trump, but said they find her views on race “disturbing.”

“When you don’t see racism as a problem and how people get held back because of their ethnicity — that’s where she misses it,” Harry Preston said.

ABC News’ Mary Alice Parks and Briana Stewart contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As this week’s Alabama Supreme Court ruling raised concerns on protections for in vitro fertilization treatments, former President Donald Trump is finally breaking his silence, calling on the state legislature “to act quickly to find an immediate solution to preserve the availability of IVF in Alabama.”

“We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies not harder, you know that. That includes — and you saw this was a big deal over the last few days — that includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America,” Trump said at a massive arena rally in Rock Hill, South Carolina, on Friday.

Trump went on to say he “strongly” supports the availability of IVF for couples.

“And today, I’m calling on the Alabama legislature to act quickly to find an immediate solution to preserve the availability of IVF in Alabama and I’m sure they’re going to do that,” he said.

Trump continued, going on to say that he will always stand for life, which includes IVF.

“The Republican Party should always be on the side of the miracle of life and the side of mothers and fathers and beautiful little babies have to be on that. IVF is an important part of that and our great Republican Party will always be with you. ”

Trump’s comments at his rally are nearly identical to what he posted on his social media platform earlier in the day.

On Tuesday, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that “unborn children are ‘children’ … without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics.” Trump’s comments on Friday avoided giving an opinion on the court’s ruling that a frozen embryo is a child.

The unprecedented decision from the court could impact the future of IVF treatments in the state — and several IVF providers have paused parts of their care to patients for fear of legal risks.

The state’s attorney general said Friday that he does not intend to prosecute IVF providers or families in the wake of the ruling.

Trump’s comments also come after Biden’s campaign directly blamed him for the decision, saying it was “only possible” because “Donald Trump’s Supreme Court justices overturned Roe v. Wade.” Trump appointed three conservative justices while he was president.

“Across the nation, MAGA Republicans are inserting themselves into the most personal decisions a family can make, from contraception to IVF. With their latest attack on reproductive freedom, these so-called pro-life Republicans are preventing loving couples from growing their families. If Donald Trump is elected, there is no question that he will impose his extreme anti-freedom agenda on the entire country,” Biden-Harris campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said in a statement.

What other Republicans are saying

Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama garnered attention after he said he supported the court’s decision because he believes there ought to be more children — even though the ruling has led to the temporary pause of IVF services in multiple sites throughout the state.

“I was all for it, we need to have more kids, we need to have an opportunity to do that and I thought this was the right thing to do,” Tuberville said at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Later, when pushed by MSNBC’S Dasha Burns on his message to women who are losing access to IVF, Tuberville replied: “Well, that’s a hard one, it really is.”

In the aftermath of Tuberville’s comments, the National Republican Senatorial Committee circulated a memo, obtained by ABC News, urging members to “express support for IVF” and to “campaign on increasing access.”

“A recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court is fodder for Democrats hoping to manipulate the abortion issue for electoral gain,” the memo read. “There are zero Republican Senate candidates who support efforts to restrict access to fertility treatments. NRSC encourages Republican Senate candidates to clearly and concisely reject efforts by the government to restrict IVF.”

Kari Lake, running for Senate in Arizona, wrote on social media that she will “advocate for increased access to fertility treatment for women struggling to get pregnant” and that she was against restrictions.

Dave McCormick, a Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, similarly posted that “IVF is a ray of hope for millions of Americans seeking the blessing of children. I oppose any effort to restrict it.”

Other Republicans have said Alabama’s court correctly interpreted the law but that the law should be modified.

“People who want to have a family should have the government and the law on their side and the notion that discarded embryos and IVF somehow turn these people who want children and want families and want the American dream into criminals is really wrong,” Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said on CNN.

“I disagree with the end state,” Rep. Don. Bacon, a moderate Republican, said when asked about the court’s decision during an NBC News Now interview. “I think the court ruling is interpreting the law so Alabama will probably have to modify the law to make this permissible and we would want that.”

ABC News’ Sarah Beth Hensley, Isabella Murray, Rachel Bade, Brittany Shepherd, Tia Humphries and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.