(WASHINGTON) — As the NFL draft kicks off this week, President Joe Biden’s campaign is launching a new digital ad on Thursday taking aim at former President Donald Trump’s past comments disparaging football and the league, the Biden campaign told ABC News.
The short, 20-second ad, on YouTube, features a montage of Trump previously attacking football, calling it “boring as hell” and saying “nobody cares about football,” juxtaposed with Biden greeting and touting his relationship with football players.
The ad — the latest skirmish in the early part of Biden’s general election fight against Trump, which is expected to be close — ends with the message: “Make the right pick in November.”
The ad plays into the longstanding feud between the NFL and Trump, who had once owned rival United States Football League team the New Jersey Generals in the 1980s and reportedly tried to buy the Buffalo Bills in 2014 but was unsuccessful after investors doubted the NFL would allow it.
Trump has repeated attacks on football and more specifically the NFL over the years, including during his presidency when he railed against NFL players who kneeled during the national anthem as part of a protest against systematic bias against people of color.
However, Trump has had close ties to some notable figures in football, including quarterback Tom Brady and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft.
He has also frequented tailgates and college football games on the campaign trail, including attending the famed University of Iowa Hawkeyes versus Iowa State University Cyclones game and the Palmetto Bowl between the South Carolina Gamecocks and the Clemson University Tigers last year as the Republican Party’s Iowa caucuses and the South Carolina primary were heating up.
According to the Biden campaign, the new ad will target football fans across battleground states including in Green Bay, Wisconsin; in Detroit; in Phoenix; and in Pittsburgh. The ad will also air in Atlanta, Charlotte, North Carolina, and Las Vegas.
Second gentleman Douglas Emhoff, who is attending the NFL draft in Michigan on Thursday night, claimed in a statement that while the rest of the country will be celebrating football, Trump will be “sitting on the sidelines trying to make tonight about himself, rage-posting on his failing social media platform and spewing his extreme, divisive, and historically unpopular agenda.”
The first clip used in the ad shows Trump at a rally in Henderson, Nevada, on the first Sunday of the 2020 NFL season, where the then-president urged the audience to sit down and get comfortable before stating they had plenty of time as “football is boring as hell.”
He added: “Used to be people would say, ‘Hey, could you keep it away from, from a football game?’ Now they say, ‘Could you possibly do it during a football game?'”
In the second clip, from a 2020 rally in Nevada’s capital, Carson City, Trump said, “Nobody cares about football. They ought to get smart because they can’t win this war. We want people that love our country.”
Trump has repeatedly disparaged NFL players kneeling over the years, claiming they’ve gotten too “soft” and calling for them to be suspended.
“The NFL players are at it again – taking a knee when they should be standing proudly for the National Anthem,” Trump wrote on X, then called Twitter, in 2018. “Numerous players, from different teams, wanted to show their “outrage” at something that most of them are unable to define. They make a fortune doing what they love.”
(NEW YORK) — Speaker Mike Johnson, claiming that Hamas supports the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protests at Columbia University and other of the U.S. colleges, on Thursday threatened congressional intervention, including pulling federal funding from the institutions.
“The things that have happened at the hands of Hamas are horrific, and yet these protestors are out there waving flags for the very people who committed those crimes. This is not who we are in America,” Johnson, the top House Republican, said in a post on X on Thursday morning. ABC News has not documented any cases of protesters waving Hamas flags, as Johnson suggested.
Student protests at Columbia and other schools have primarily denounced Israeli military action in Gaza and expressed support for Palestinian civilians, rather than expressing support for Hamas. School administrators and officials have said the protests on their campuses have been largely peaceful.
Citing a statement Hamas issued Wednesday, Johnson said Hamas “backed” the protests at Columbia specifically, which began April 17. Johnson added in a separate post on X that “taxpayer dollars should not be going to institutions that allow this chaos.”
In the Hamas statement, its spokesperson Izzat Al-Risheq blamed President Joe Biden for “violating the individual rights and the right to expression through arresting university students and faculty members for their rejection of the genocide to which our Palestinian people are being subjected in the Gaza Strip at the hands of the neo-Nazi Zionists.”
“Today’s students are the leaders of the future, and their suppression today means an expensive electoral bill that the Biden administration will pay sooner or later,” Al-Risheq wrote in the statement.
In response to Hamas’ statement, White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates told ABC News that “Hamas perpetrated the deadliest massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust, which makes them the least credible voice that exists on this subject.”
“Hamas’ disapproval, after their acts of ‘unadulterated evil’ — which they’ve pledged to repeat ‘again and again’ — is a testament to President Biden’s moral clarity. President Biden has stood against Antisemitism his entire life. And he will never stop,” Bates said.
Johnson’s comments on Thursday came a day after he visited Columbia University, where he met with Jewish students and joined his New York House Republican colleagues in calling for the school’s president, Minouche Shafik, to resign if she can’t bring order to the protests. In a speech, during which boos and shouts from protesters often overpowered the speaker’s words, Johnson considered the need to send the National Guard to intervene.
In an interview with ABC News’ Linsey Davis on Wednesday, Johnson cited the statement and said Hamas sees Columbia’s protesters as the future leaders of America.
“We should hope not,” Johnson said. “Hamas is a terrorist organization.”
Johnson said federal funding should be revoked if universities cannot maintain control of the protests and prevent violence.
“If [school administrators] can’t get control of this, we will take the funding away from these universities. The Congress has a responsibility to do that, the power of the purse, and we will use it, and we will hold these administrators accountable,” Johnson told Davis.
While Johnson mentioned violence on campus, the New York Police Department said earlier this week that there are no credible threats to any particular group or individual as a result of the protests at Columbia University. The department said it had not received any reports of physical harm toward any students.
Last week, more than 100 pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested at Columbia as they called for the divestment of college and university funds from Israeli military operations. Other participants in Columbia’s ongoing, encampment-style protests were suspended and removed from campus.
The demonstrations followed Shafik’s testimony to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce about antisemitism on college campuses, during which she said she has taken actions to combat antisemitism on campus since a terror attack on Oct. 7 sparked Israel’s war with Hamas.
New York GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik called for Shafik’s resignation days later, writing in a post on X that Columbia “failed to enforce their own campus rules and protect Jewish students on campus.”
While there have been some instances of violence and offensive or antisemitic rhetoric during the protests, school administrators, New York police and protesters themselves have largely blamed that activity on individuals not affiliated with the schools.
“… Tensions have been exploited and amplified by individuals who are not affiliated with Columbia who have come to campus to pursue their own agendas,” Shafik said earlier this week.
Columbia spokesman Ben Chang said the student encampment on campus has raised serious safety concerns. He added that Columbia will not tolerate harassment and discriminatory behavior, and the university will investigate to see if any student protestors violated community rules.
8 years after the National Enquirer’s deal with Donald Trump, the iconic tabloid is limping badly In response to some student concerns about safety amid on-campus tension, some universities have responded by opting for remote or hybrid learning options.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddart and Kiara Alfonseca contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — As various Supreme Court justices themselves acknowledged during a high-stakes hearing on Thursday, they could potentially reshape the contours of presidential power when they rule on whether Donald Trump is entitled to some amount of immunity from prosecution for alleged acts in the White House as he pushed to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Over nearly three hours on Thursday, with demonstrators gathered outside, the justices grappled with arguments from both Trump’s attorney and an attorney for special counsel Jack Smith, who has charged Trump in connection with his effort to stay in office after losing to now-President Joe Biden.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and disputes some of what he is accused of doing while he maintains that other actions were part of his presidential authority.
The oral arguments included several notable and important exchanges. Here are 10 of the key moments.
A decision is expected from the court by the end of June.
Could a president assassinate his rival?
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and then Samuel Alito touched on one of the most provocative hypotheticals raised in Trump’s battle for “absolute immunity” from charges over what he claims were official acts: Could a commander in chief order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and not face prosecution?
Sotomayor raised it first while questioning Trump attorney John Sauer. She pointed back to an earlier exchange Sauer had in a lower court proceeding.
“I’m going to give you a chance to say …if you stay by it: The president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him — is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.
“It would depend on the hypothetical,” Sauer answered. “We could see that could well be an official act.”
Sotomayor pressed on that point: “Immunity says even if you did it for personal gain, we won’t hold you responsible — what do you — how could that be?”
Sauer pointed back to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from the ’80s that held a president is immune from civil liability related to this official acts, which Sauer said is a basis for their own argument now about criminal liability.
“That’s an extremely strong doctrine in this court’s case law in cases like Fitzgerald,” he said.
Later, Alito referred back to a president’s hypothetical use of the military as elite assassins as he and Sotomayor split on whether “plausibleness” was a useful standard for scrutiny versus “reasonable.”
“One might argue that it isn’t plausible to order SEAL Team 6 — and I don’t want to slander SEAL Team 6 because they’re — no, seriously — they’re honorable, they’re honorable officers and they are bound by the uniform code of military justice not to obey unlawful orders — [but] I think one could say it’s not plausible … that that action would be legal,” Alito said.
To Sauer, he said, “I’m sure you’ve thought of lots of hypotheticals where a president could say, ‘I’m using an official power,’ and yet the power uses it in an absolutely outrageous manner.”
‘What was up with the pardon of President Nixon?’
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Sauer on his contention that without immunity all future presidents would feel paralyzed to take official acts that could put them in criminal jeopardy.
“I mean, I understood that every president from the beginning of time essentially has understood that there was a threat of prosecution [upon leaving office],” Jackson said.
Sauer responded by quoting Ben Franklin from the constitutional convention, to which Jackson seemed skeptical.
“But since Benjamin Franklin everybody has presidents who have held the office [who knew] that they were taking this office subject to potential criminal prosecution, no?” she said.
She cited one well-known example of a former president who came under legal scrutiny.
8 years after the National Enquirer’s deal with Donald Trump, the iconic tabloid is limping badly “What was up with the pardon for President [Richard] Nixon? … If everybody thought that presidents couldn’t be prosecuted, then what — what was that about?” she said.
“He was under investigation for both private and public conduct at the time — official acts and private conduct,” Sauer said, going on to indicate that there had long been established an understanding that presidents could be prosecuted for private acts.
“Counsel on that score, there does seem to be some common ground between you, your colleague on the other side, that no man’s above the law and that the president can be prosecuted after he leaves office for his private conduct, is that right?” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked.
“We agree with that,” Sauer answered.
“And then the question becomes, as we’ve been exploring here today, a little bit about how to segregate private from official conduct that may or may not enjoy some immunity,” Gorsuch said.
That underscored what could emerge as a key part of the court’s ultimate decision: how to separate out Trump’s conduct that is protected by the presidency, under a ruling of some executive immunity, and what he is accused of doing outside the bounds of his presidential authority that can be prosecuted.
But Trump’s attorney concedes some conduct was private
Not long after, Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Sauer precisely where some of the described conduct falls, between official and private — protected or unprotected.
“You concede that private acts don’t get immunity,” she said.
“We do,” Sauer said.
Barrett then specifically cited various alleged acts from Trump’s push to overturn the 2020 election, as described by prosecutors.
Barrett, quoting from court filings, said, “I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private. Petitioner turned to a private attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results. Private?”
“We dispute the allegation, but that sounds private to me,” Sauer said.
Barrett continued: “Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification, signed by petitioner, that contained false allegations to support a challenge. Private?”
“Also sounds private,” Sauer said.
“Three private actors, two attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant, helped to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney directed that had effort.” Barrett said.
“I believe that’s private,” Sauer replied.
“Those acts you would not dispute,” Barrett said. “Those were private and you wouldn’t raise a claim that they were official.”
Sauer said back: “As characterized.”
‘That’s like a one-legged stool, right?’
A notable response came shortly after from Chief Justice Roberts when Sauer pushed the justices to remand the case back down to the lower courts to piece through which allegations in the indictment amount to a protected “official act” under the presidency.
“The official stuff has to be expunged completely from the indictment before the case can go forward,” Sauer argued.
“That’s like a one-legged stool, right?” Roberts said. “I mean, giving somebody money isn’t bribery unless you get something in exchange. If what you get in exchange is to become the ambassador to a particular country, that is official, the appointment, it’s within the president’s prerogatives. The unofficial part is — ‘I’m going to get a million dollars for it.'”
After this exchange, Justice Clarence Thomas raised unprompted whether Trump’s legal team was challenging the legality of the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith, a questionable theory previously pushed by right-wing lawyers like former Attorney General Ed Meese.
Sauer said Trump’s legal team was making that argument in his separate Florida federal case, in which he is accused of mishandling classified information while out of office, but they weren’t doing so directly in this case, to which Thomas did not follow up.
Justice Alito then asked Sauer if all official acts alleged in the Jan. 6 indictment should be excluded from trial, to which Sauer answered they should.
But Justice Sotomayor pressed back on the notion of remanding the case, arguing that even in the instances of acts that could be considered official, they came in the context of Trump pushing forward in his “private” intent of remaining in office.
“I don’t think the indictment is charging that the obstruction occurred solely because of conversations with the Justice Department,” she said. “They’re saying — you look at all of the private acts and you look in the context of some of the public acts and you can infer the intent, the private intent from them.”
Fear of turning Oval Office into ‘seat of criminal activity’
In questioning Sauer about why presidents shouldn’t face criminal liability for unlawful actions they take in office, Justice Jackson seemed to warn that, as she sees it, giving presidents absolute immunity could turn the White House into “the seat of criminal activity in this country.”
In response, Sauer insisted that while a president shouldn’t face criminal prosecution, they could face impeachment or other remedies for any unlawful conduct.
The exchange began when Jackson pressed, “If there’s no threat of criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants?”
Sauer pointed to “impeachment, oversight by Congress, public oversight, there’s a long series.”
“You seem to be worried about the president being chilled. I think that we would have a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn’t chilled,” Jackson said.
“If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes — I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country,” Jackson continued.
She asked Sauer, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office?”
But Sauer indicated that such problems hadn’t occurred so far.
“I respectfully disagree with that because the regime you described is the regime we operated under for 234 years,” he said.
Can a president pardon themselves?
During Sauer’s questioning, Gorsuch asked him to explain the Trump team’s position on whether a president hypothetically has the power to pardon themselves, which he said could happen if presidents feared that their successors could prosecute them for actions they took while in office.
“I didn’t think of that until your honor asked it. That is certainly incentive that might be created,” Sauer answered.
“We’ve never answered whether a president can do that. Happily it’s never been presented to us,” Gorsuch said in response.
Later in the hearing, Michael Dreeben, arguing for the government, was asked for his view on whether the president has such authority.
“I don’t believe the department of justice has taken a position,” Dreeben said. The only authority that I’m aware of is a member of the Office of Legal Counsel wrote on a memorandum that there is no self-pardon authority. As far as I know, the department has not addressed it further and the court had not addressed it either.”
Will the case be remanded — delaying it until next year?
Roberts began his line of questioning of Dreeben, in the second half of the haring, by raising concerns about the opinion issued by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their sweeping rejection of Trump’s claims of immunity.
Roberts said the statement that “a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has allegedly acted in defiance of the laws” concerned him because “as I read it, it says a former president can be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted.”
Roberts said such a position could put too much faith in the justice system to act non-politically and out of good faith — and he asked whether the Supreme Court should send the opinion back down to make clear to the circuit court that that is not the law.
Dreeben responded there are “layered safeguards” that protect against malicious prosecution.
“We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecution in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence, or politically driven prosecution that would violate the Constitution,” Dreeben said.
Near the end of the hearing, Barrett also noted that the justices could send the case back to the lower court to decide which of the actions in the indictment against Trump was official — and therefore not prosecutable — versus which were done in his private capacity.
Such an outcome could rule out a trial before the end of the year and before the November election.
Dreeben emphasized that the Department of Justice would prefer to tell a jury all of it: “There’s an integrated conspiracy here that had different components, as alleged in the indictment. Working with private lawyers to achieve the goals of the fraud and … the petitioner reaching for his official powers to try to make the conspiracies more likely to succeed.
“We would like to present that as an integrated picture to the jury so that it sees … [the] gravity of the conduct.”
However, Dreeben indicated that even if some of the alleged actions in indictment were deemed official in nature and not subject to prosecution, prosecutors would still want to present some of those actions to the jury to show Trump’s state of mind when he engaged in actions deemed private.
Presidents can make mistakes without charges
Dreeben faced questions from Alito on whether or not presidents can make a “mistake” given the many competing pressures they are under in their day to day duties.
“Presidents have to make a lot of tough decisions about enforcing the law and they have to make decisions about questions that are unsettled,” Alito said, then asking if a “mistake” makes a commander in chief criminally liable.
“Making a mistake is not what lands you in a criminal prosecution,” Dreeben said.
Later he raised some of the specific accusations in the charges against Trump: “It is difficult for me to understand how there could be a serious constitutional question about saying, ‘You can’t use fraud to defeat the [certification of the winner of the presidential election], you can’t obstruct it through deception, you can’t deprive millions of voters of their right to have their vote counted for the candidate who they chose.'”
Charging FDR for internment camps?
Much of the justices’ questioning of the attorneys on Thursday turned on hypotheticals to probe at the limits of each of their arguments about whether presidents should or should not be immune from prosecution.
Beyond Sotomayor asking about a potential assassination using the military, Justice Elana Kagan asked how immunity would apply if a president ordered soldiers “to stage a coup.”
Sauer said in that potential case, it “may well be an official act” that would require impeachment and conviction before he is prosecuted.
He said something similar when Sotomayor asked if Trump’s backing of “fraudulent” alternate electors in 2020, to try and overturn the results, as described in the indictment, was also part of his official duties. “Absolutely, your honor,” Sauer said.
Alito added his own what-if as he questioned Dreeben, with the government.
“Mr. Sauer and others have identified events in the past where presidents have engaged in conduct that might have been charged as a federal crime, and you say, ‘Well, no, that’s not really true.’ … So, what about president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to inter Japanese Americans during World War II. Couldn’t that have been charged under conspiracy against civil rights?” Alito asked.
Dreeben raised a number of concerns with hypothetically trying to bring charges but demurred on a straightforward answer beyond noting the controversy and complexity.
Worry of a vicious cycle of prosecutions — and what happens next
In line with many of his questions during today’s arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused at one point on what the impact of prosecution could be on the office of the presidency and his worries of what he called a vicious cycle of malicious prosecutions hampering presidents for years and years to come — in the absence of immunity.
He likened the current moment to a controversial post-Watergate Supreme Court decision involving the powers of independent counsels, in which the late Justice Antonin Scalia penned one of his most famous dissents in defense of the presidency.
“That’s the concern going forward is that the system will — when former presidents are subject to prosecution in the history of Morrison v. Olsen tells us, it’s going to cycle back and be used against the current president or the next president or and the next president and after that,” Kavanaugh said.
He further claimed in the exchange that while President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon was “very controversial in the moment” it is “now looked upon as one of the better decisions in presidential history I think by most people.”
Notably, however, both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch said their concerns about overreaching prosecutions didn’t extend to the facts of the Jan. 6 case against Trump.
Throughout arguments, justices made clear they were looking past the immediate example of Trump to what their decision will mean for the future of the presidency.
“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Gorsuch said.
Kavanuagh echoed that: “This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency and for the future of the country, in my view.”
And Alito said, “Whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents.”
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump has blown up his fair share of deals on Capitol Hill, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says Trump’s decision to hold his tongue on a massive $95 billion foreign aid package — including critical aid for Ukraine — may have made all the difference in getting the legislation across the finish line.
McConnell had staked his legacy on passage of a national security aid package Tuesday night, securing billions in aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, and to get it done, he pushed back hard against the isolationist wing of his own party, convincing 30 other Republicans to join him.
And the win, he told ABC News in an interview Wednesday, will help persuade Trump to change his views as well.
McConnell was eager to talk about how he plans to make fighting isolationism his mission during his remaining time in the Senate, including after he steps aside as Republican leader in November.
“I am not leaving the Senate. And this is going to be my primary focus going forward, and I think it’s important for us and for the rest of the world,” he said.
McConnell as Reagan Republican Trump, who has waded in to a number of legislative debates in recent weeks, did not directly weigh in on how members ought to vote on the Ukraine aid package. On Tuesday, the former president seemed to embrace House Speaker Mike Johnson, who stuck his neck out to ensure the package could get passed.
McConnell, who has had a tumultuous relationship with the former president, acknowledged that Trump’s decision to get behind Johnson and to keep his opinions on Ukraine aid to himself may have swung his party more in the direction McConnell has been pleading them to go for over a year: away from isolationism, toward American global leadership.
“I think the issues typically reflect either your president of your party and office or the nominee for president, and I think a lot of the views Republicans at large are going to have will be based not on what we did in Congress but on where the nominee or president is,” McConnell said. “I was encouraged by the fact that he allegedly embraced the speaker and decided to quit talking about this issue.”
The Republican leader sees himself in the mold of Ronald Reagan, whose “peace through strength” worldview has become less and less visible in Trump’s “America First” GOP.
At times, in the earliest stages of the debate over foreign aid, McConnell said he felt like the lone Reagan Republican in the room.
“In the beginning I sort of did,” McConnell said, when asked if he felt isolated. “But I think it got better.”
Demonstrating to Trump For McConnell, the passage of this multi-pronged supplemental aid package was essential to demonstrating to Trump that globalist views can be popular with Republicans.
“I know how much he likes to win,” McConnell said. “And this looks like a winning issue, not a losing issue.”
That’s why McConnell, who is stepping down this from his role as GOP leader in November after 18 years on the job, said he’s not done pushing back on isolationism.
For now, McConnell feels he beat back the pull of isolationism in his party.
“At least on this issue, I think the isolationist movement didn’t come that close,” he said.
Says Trump opposing border deal helped clear the way Though McConnell was ultimately successful in his efforts to get the bill passed, It took Congress over six months to move on President Joe Biden’s supplemental aid request for Ukraine.
Part of the reason for that delay was an effort by Republicans to condition foreign aid on robust provisions to secure the U.S. southern border. That effort fizzled out after Republicans rejected a bipartisan deal containing many of the provisions that they themselves had insisted on.
McConnell said the border remains a looming issue that requires attention.
But he also concedes that choosing to focus on the border as part of the discussion about a foreign aid package may have been a costly distraction from dealing with the original national security supplemental request.
And former President Trump is the one who ultimately cleared the deck.
“I would love to solve the border problem, we actually tried,” McConnell said. “But most of my colleagues decided it wasn’t good enough and the former president said he’d rather it not be done at all, and so that kind of moved the border away.”
With the border issue formally quashed, members were able to get behind the bill more easily. It’s part of the reason that McConnell believes the package picked up nine additional Republican supporters between its consideration in February and Tuesday night’s passage.
“I think once the border issue was settled, not in a way that all of us preferred, but clearly nothing was going to happen, you had the original supplemental there,” McConnell said.
“I think once members focus on the facts, just the facts, it’s very hard to argue against the proposal,” he said.
Trump’s opposition to the border provision may have, in the end, been a critical component of getting foreign aid passed.
Foreign aid passage makes Reagan-type approach ‘look like a winner’ Johnson sat on the Senate supplemental bill for more than two months. He eventually let the House of Representatives vote on the bill in pieces after Trump bowed out of expressing a direct opinion on how members ought to proceed.
“He gave everybody a chance to vote, which is a good way to figure out how will pass and what won’t,” McConnell said of Johnson’s manuevering. “And I think that was really, in his situation, a pretty courageous decision.”
Johnson faced threats to lose his gavel over advancing the foreign aid package in part due to an increasingly isolationist House GOP Conference. In the Senate, about 70% of Republicans backed the foreign aid package. But more than half of House Republicans rejected Ukraine aid.
McConnell blames the anti-Ukraine sentiments among Republicans in both chambers on ousted Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson.
“Tucker Carlson had a massive audience that was a lot of rank and file Republicans, starting carving on Ukraine,” McConnell said. “And the former president was skeptical about it. And that had a huge impact on public opinion.”
But Tuesday night’s vote, McConnell believes, is a critical step in changing public opinion, especially as he seeks to lead his members towards reclaiming the Senate in November’s elections.
“Tuesday makes the Reagan-type approach look like a winner, not a loser,” McConnell said. “And I think that’s the beginning of changing public sentiment.”
(WASHINGTON) — Against the backdrop of a divisive 2024 presidential campaign, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will take up the monumental question of whether a former president turned presumptive GOP nominee can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to stay in power after the last election.
The case, Donald J. Trump v. United States, presents an unprecedented constitutional quandary for the court brought about by equally unprecedented actions by former President Donald Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Joe Biden by a margin of 7 million popular votes.
The outcome could determine whether Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts pressed by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn the electoral vote count certifying Biden’s victory.
Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, is seeking to quash the case on the claim that as a former president he enjoys “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for any “official acts” during his tenure. He is the first American president — current or former — to ever face criminal charges.
“The President cannot function, and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in their opening brief to the high court.
“Denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents,” they argued.
Two courts have resoundingly rejected the former president’s immunity arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
“Former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel wrote. “Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct.”
The appeals court warned that if Trump’s constitutional theory were accepted, it would “collapse our system of separated powers” by putting a president above the law.
Smith, the special counsel, argues in his brief to the high court that Trump’s assertion lacks any historical precedent and undermines the founders’ vision of a presidency restrained in power.
“The effective functioning of the presidency does not require that a former president be immune from accountability for these alleged violations of federal criminal law,” the he wrote the justices. “To the contrary, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law — including the President.”
A trial date in Smith’s federal election case against Trump was initially set for March 4 in U.S. District Court but was delayed awaiting a final decision by the Supreme Court. A ruling on the immunity claim is expected before July, as soon as mid-May.
The justices could uphold the appeals court decision in its entirety, clearing the way for a trial this summer, or they could take a middle-road approach, spelling out what actions qualify for immunity and which do not, sending the case back to lower courts for further proceedings. Such an outcome could rule out a trial before the November election.
Most legal analysts say it’s highly unlikely the Supreme Court — with its conservative majority and three Trump appointees — will endorse Trump’s sweeping assertion of “absolute immunity.” In a 2020 decision, the same court rejected a similar immunity claim by Trump in his attempt to reject a grand jury subpoena for his tax returns.
A majority of Americans (51%) think the federal indictment of Trump related to Jan. 6 and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election is very serious, according to an ABC News/Ipsos poll from late last year.
Just over half of respondents — 52% — think Trump should have been charged with a crime in this case, while 32% said he should not have been. At the same time, 46% think the charges against Trump are politically motivated, while 40% do not, per the poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.
Trump’s legal team has argued that the impeachment process is the only check on a president’s conduct allowed by the Constitution, even as they concede that a president who is impeached, convicted and removed from office could subsequently face criminal prosecution for the same acts.
Trump was impeached by the House in 2021 over his efforts to overturn results of the 2020 election but later acquitted by the Senate after he had left office. The former president argues that his actions were part of a legally legitimate effort to ensure election integrity.
Smith insists former presidents have never been immune from prosecution and have always been aware of the potential for prosecution. He cites in court briefs the case of former President Richard Nixon accepting a pardon from President Gerald Ford as evidence that Nixon believed prosecution was possible after he had resigned.
While Supreme Court precedent has limited civil litigation against presidents, the special counsel contends criminal matters are different — and that there are layers of legal safeguards in the system to prevent partisan harassment and protect due process.
Tough new EPA rules would force coal-fired power plants to capture emissions or shut down “Even if liability could not be premised on official acts,” Smith wrote the justices in his brief, “the case should be remanded for trial, with the district court to make evidentiary and instructional rulings in accordance with this Court’s decision. Petitioner [Trump] could seek appellate review of those rulings, if necessary, following final judgment.”
After oral arguments on Thursday, the justices will vote during their weekly private conference and begin drafting opinions. They are expected to be released before the court’s term ends in June.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday is hearing arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted over his efforts to overturn his 2020 loss.
The justices will take up the monumental question of if, and if so to what extent, former presidents enjoy immunity for conduct alleged to involve official acts during their time in office.
The high court’s decision will determine if Trump stands trial before the November election on four charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Here’s how the news is developing:
Apr 25, 9:10 AM How we got here
Trump, seeking to quash the federal election subversion case brought against him by Smith last year, is claiming he has “absolute” immunity from the criminal prosecution for anything related to his presidency.
Two lower courts have rejected that argument.
First, District Judge Tanya Chutkan (who is overseeing the trial) determined that someone once serving as president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”
Then, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia unanimously struck down Trump’s claims. They warned his view, if accepted, would “collapse” the country’s political system.
Trump then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. His trial is on hold while this matter plays out in the courts.
(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration on Thursday announced a series of new rules to cut pollution emitted from coal and natural gas fired power plants impacting the air, water, land and climate.
“The electricity industry is central to America’s economic growth and independence. These are the folks who keep the lights on and power our country forward,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan said. “At the same time, the power sector is also a major contributor to the pollution that drives climate change and threatens public health.”
“At EPA it is our responsibility to act within the bounds of our legal authority and assess impacts in a way that is smart, effective, follows the latest science and enables our economy to grow and thrive,” he added.
Power plants account for more than one-quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., according to the EPA, making them one of the most potent sources of climate pollution in the country.
“The age of unbridled climate pollution from power plants is over. These standards cut carbon emissions, at last, from the single largest industrial source,” Manish Bapna, president and chief executive officer of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. “They fit hand-in-glove with the clean energy incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act to make sure we cut our carbon footprint. They will reduce other dangerous pollutants that foul the air we breathe and threaten our health.”
The agency claims these four new regulations, taken together, will represent a massive reduction in pollution and hundreds of billions of dollars in climate and public health benefits.
Decarbonizing the power sector
The first of the new EPA rules updates a provision of the Clean Air Act to require existing coal-fired power plants and new natural gas plants to control 90% of their carbon pollution through technologies like carbon capture.
Through 2047, an administration regulatory impact analysis found this new standard will avoid 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon pollution — the equivalent of 328 million gas-powered cars’ annual emissions.
Evergreen Action senior policy lead for the power sector Charles Harper told ABC News that the decarbonization measure is a “major game changer for climate action in this country,” saying it will, “get at one of the largest sources of carbon pollution in the economy.”
The Biden administration says the rule will create $370 billion in climate and public health benefits in the next 20 years, including 1,200 avoided premature deaths and 1,900 cases of asthma onset avoided.
“It’s a real win for climate change and folks who live on planet Earth,” Harper added.
Edison Electric Institute, an organization representing U.S. investor-owned electric companies, told ABC News it supports the EPA move, but has concerns.
“While we appreciate and support EPA’s work to develop a clear, continued path for the transition to cleaner resources, we are disappointed that the agency did not address the concerns we raised about carbon capture and storage (CCS),” EEI President and CEO Dan Brouillette said in a statement. “CCS is not yet ready for full-scale, economy-wide deployment, nor is there sufficient time to permit, finance, and build the CCS infrastructure needed for compliance by 2032.”
“We will remain engaged with EPA and with state agencies as they implement these rules,” the organization added. “We also will continue to work constructively with EPA as it develops a new proposal for existing natural gas turbines.”
Tightening mercury and air toxics standards
Another rule updates the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for coal-fired plants.
One provision of the rule tightens the emissions standard for toxic metals by 67%. The other requires a 70% reduction in the mercury emissions standard specifically from lignite coal-fired power plants.
“This new standard will also require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems to provide real-time accurate data to facility operators and to the public to ensure that plants are meeting these lower limits and that communities are protected year round from pollution exposure,” Regan said.
By 2028, the EPA estimates the new rule will result in 1,000 pounds of mercury emissions reductions in addition to seven tons of other hazardous air pollutant emissions, 770 tons of fine particulate matter pollution and others.
Reducing power plant. waste water pollution
A third rule would reduce waste water pollutants from coal-fired power plants by over 660 million pounds per year, according to the EPA, with the goal of protecting freshwater and drinking water resources for communities around the country.
The agency used its authority under the Clean Water Act for the implementation of this rule, which includes flexible compliance options for coal-fired plants with plans to stop burning coal by 2034. Plants intending to retire coal use will only need to meet current standards, rather than the updated, stricter ones.
President of the Hip Hop Caucus, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, told ABC News that even in divisive times, “people want clean air and clean water.” Yearwood’s organization works on environmental justice efforts, among other priorities.
“We don’t get along right now in our country. We’re not seeing eye to eye on too many things,” Yearwood said. “But one thing that we see eye to eye on is that we all seem to want clean water.”
Yearwood explained that often the burden of pollution falls disproportionately on Black, brown and Indigenous communities, whose communities may be considered “sacrifice zones” by polluters.
The EPA noted the impact of this rule on “communities with environmental justice concerns that are disproportionately impacted” in the release announcing the measures.
Coal ash containment protections
A final rule from the EPA marks the first federal regulation for the management of coal ash, including potential contamination of groundwater.
Burning coal in these power plants creates coal ash, which can contaminate waterways and water systems, in addition to the air, according to the EPA.
The rule, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, requires coal-fired power plants to control and clean coal ash that’s a byproduct of their operation — in addition to areas historically contaminated by coal ash.
“With this rule, we are ensuring that polluters are held accountable for controlling and cleaning up the contamination created by their disposal of coal ash,” Regan said, noting that each of the four new rules contains “transparency requirements” to protect affected communities.
Election-year implications
This slate of rules is accompanied by a separate announcement from the Department of Energy of efforts to build out transmission lines to clean energy sources around the nation.
The new DOE rule creates the Coordinated Interagency Transmission Authorization and Permits (CITAP) program, which aims to make the federal permitting process for transmission projects more efficient — giving them a standardized two-year timeline.
The EPA rules mark the latest in a series of major regulatory announcements by the agency, as it has been working to finalize several outstanding sets of rule proposals.
Environmental organizations told ABC News they have been pressuring the Biden administration to get rules out the door before the Congressional Review Act period begins.
“There’s this one law, called the Congressional Review Act, which might allow Republicans to try to meddle with some of the accomplishments by the Biden Administration and EPA and the Administration is very wary and cognizant of any deadlines posed by the Congressional Review Act,” Harper told ABC News. “The fact that the EPA is finalizing all these rules and month of April means that they’re likely insulated from any potential meddling by congressional Republicans.”
Yearwood said these environmental regulations could have potential to sway the election, but said it’ll be a “mad dash now,” to see which way it goes.
“For my Republican friends, I think that you may have missed the ball with underestimating the importance of clean air and clean water for these communities. That may be their undoing,” he said. “On the other hand, I think, for Democrats, I think that they are in a position where they may have waited too late, actually. This is something that I think should have been moving much stronger on.”
“It just befuddles me that they waited so long to get to the soil on both standpoints. We’ll see. It’ll be a mad dash now because on one hand, I think that if this can be more crystallized for Americans, and they can understand the importance of climate, and particularly pollution, I think that this could actually tilt the scales from one way or the other,” Yearwood said.
In this Oct. 18, 2020 file photo, a person is seen depositing their mail-in ballots for the U.S. presidential election at a ballot collection box in Phoenix. (Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Several former and current key aides to former President Donald Trump appear to be among those charged by the Arizona State Attorney General over their alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They include Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and former Trump attorney John Eastman — as well Boris Epshteyn, who remains one of Trump’s closest advisers and a current member of his 2024 campaign team.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes also announced charges against 11 named alleged fake electors and seven people whose names are redacted in the filing for their alleged role in efforts to subvert Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in the state.
The charges include fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
“Unindicted Coconspirator 1” in the indictment appears to be Trump as the language of the document says they were involved in a scheme to keep him and former Vice President Mike Pence “in office against the will of Arizona’s voters.”
Based on a review of descriptions of the seven redacted names in the Arizona indictment, the additional co-defendants are Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Boris Epshteyn (Trump 2024 senior adviser), John Eastman, Christina Bobb (RNC senior counsel for election integrity), Jenna Ellis and Mike Roman.
Rudy Giuliani
The indictment described one individual, appearing to match the description of Rudy Giuliani, as “the mayor” who “spread false claims of election fraud.”
The full description from the filing reads: “An attorney for Unindicted Coconspirator 1 who was often identified as ‘the Mayor.’ He spread false claims of election fraud in Arizona and nationally shortly after November 3, 2020. He presided over a ‘hearing’ in downtown Phoenix on November 30, 2020, where he falsely claimed that Arizona’s election officials ‘have made no effort to find out’ if the results of the recent presidential election were accurate. He pressured the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Arizona legislators to change the outcome of Arizona’s election, and he was responsible for encouraging Republican electors in Arizona and in six other contested states to vote for Trump-Pence on December 14, 2020.”
In a statement to ABC News Wednesday night, an adviser to Giuliani said, “The continued weaponization of our justice system should concern every American, from Arizona to Michigan and everywhere in between, as it does permanent, irrevocable harm to the country.”
Mark Meadows
The indictment also described another indicted individual as the “chief of staff” in 2020 — appearing to match Mark Meadows’s description.
Full description: “[REDACTED] was Unindicted Coconspirator 1’s Chief of Staff in 2020. He worked with members of the Trump Campaign to coordinate and implement the false Republican electors’ votes in Arizona and six other states. was involved in the many efforts to keep Unindicted Coconspirator 1 in power despite his defeat at the polls.”
Boris Epshteyn
The charging document details an attorney and adviser for Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns who helped implement “the scheme to submit false Republican electors.”
Full description: “[REDACTED] was an attorney and was an advisor to the Trump Campaigns in 2016 and 2020. in implementing the scheme to submit false Republican electors’ votes for Trump-Pence in Arizona and to obstruct the certification process during the January 6, 2021, Joint Session of Congress in Washington.”
John Eastman
The indictment details an attorney who “spread false claims of widespread election fraud” and pressured former Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers to convene a Special Session. Bowers has detailed how Eastman told him to “just do it and let the court sort it out.”
Full description: “[REDACTED] was an attorney who encouraged the Republican electors to vote on December 14, 2020, and spread false claims of widespread election fraud. He also pressured the legislature in Arizona and six other states to change the outcome of the election. For example, on January 4, 2021, pushed then-Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers to convene a Special Session to decertify Arizona’s presidential electors, telling him to ‘just do it and let the court sort it out.’ Bowers declined to do so. Also on January 4, met at the White House with Unindicted Coconspirator 1, Pence, and others to convince Pence to reject or at least delay the confirmation of the lawfully chosen electors two days later at the Joint Session of Congress.”
Christina Bobb
The indictment describes an attorney for Trump who “lobbied” Arizona legislators and also helped organize the fake electors plot. Bobb was a part of the Trump campaign until recently being named the Republican National Committee’s senior counsel for “election integrity.”
Full description: “[REDACTED] Campaign and worked closely with was an attorney for the Trump lobbied Arizona’s Republican legislators after the 2020 presidential election to disregard the popular vote in Arizona. She additionally helped organize the false Arizona Republican electors’ votes on December 14, 2020.”
Jenna Ellis
The charging document also lists an attorney who “worked closely” with another individual who was also charged and spread false election claims in AZ and six other states.
Full description: “[REDACTED] was an attorney for the Trump Campaign and worked closely with She made false claims of widespread election fraud in Arizona and in six other states. encouraged the Arizona Legislature to change the outcome of the election. She also encouraged Pence to accept the false Arizona Republican electors’ votes on January 6, 2021.”
Mike Roman
The indictment lists the “director of election day operations for the Trump Campaign,” which was Roman’s position.
Full description: “[REDACTED] was the Director of Election Day Operations for the Trump Campaign. He worked closely with Unindicted Coconspirator 4, and others to organize the false Republican electors’ votes in Arizona and in six other states.”
Mayes said in a release all the names would be unredacted when all defendants have been served.
In a video posted to X Wednesday night, Mayes said the defendants charged were “unwilling to accept Arizona’s election was free and fair” and allegedly schemed to “prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency.”
“We’re here because justice demands an answer to the efforts of the defendants and other unindicted co-conspirators allegedly took to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters during the 2020 presidential election,” Mayes said.
“Arizona’s election was free and fair. The people of Arizona elected President Biden. Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury, allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency,” she continued.
“Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for and I was elected to uphold the law of this state,” Mayes added. “The scheme, had it succeeded, would have deprived Arizona’s voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president.”
In filing the indictment, Arizona becomes the fourth state to file criminal charges against the so-called “fake electors” who allegedly announced they were ready to pledge electoral votes to Donald Trump in their respective states during the 2020 election, despite Joe Biden winning those states.
The 11 current named defendants in the indictment whose names are visible on the court document are Kelli Ward, Tyler Bower, Nancy Cottle, Jacob Hoffman, Anthony Kern, James Lamon, Robert Montgomery, Samuel Moorhead, Lorraine Pellegrino, Gregory Safsten and Michael Ward.
According to the indictment, 11 Republicans met in Arizona in December 2020, including then-Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, two Republican lawmakers, and a top official with the Republican National Committee, and signed documents that falsely claimed they were Arizona’s rightful electors.
“Today, Arizona’s 11 Republican presidential electors met to cast their votes for President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence,” the Arizona GOP tweeted in December 2020. “With ongoing legal challenges to the 2020 presidential election still being heard in the courts across the country holding hearings on election fraud and voting irregularities, it is imperative that the proper elections are counted by Congress.”
All 11 alleged fake electors were also part of a legal challenge in the state that sought to challenge the election results based on allegations of voter fraud. The case was thrown out by a judge who called their claims of election fraud “sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence.”
Rusty Bowers, then the Arizona House speaker, told the House Jan. 6 committee that following the election he received calls from Trump and attorney Rudy Giuliani claiming that there was election fraud in the state.
“I was insistent that I had to have proof, real proof, judicial level,” Bowers testified. “That’s the kind of proof I’m talking about. And the president said, ‘Rudy, give the man what he wants.'”
Asked by ABC News’ Jonathan Karl if Giuliani ever provided that evidence, Bowers said, “He never gave us anything. No names, no data, nothing.”
Bowers also said that Giuliani and attorney Jenna Ellis flew to Phoenix and met with him and other Arizona lawmakers, and asked them to convene the legislature to investigate their unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.
In December, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford announced felony charges against six alleged “fake electors” in that state. In Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nessel similarly charged 16 “alternate electors” in July for conspiracy to commit forgery, among other charges. And in Georgia, three such “fake electors” were among the 18 co-defendants charged, along with Trump, in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in that state.
All defendants charged in all three probes have pleaded not guilty, with Georgia defendants Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell and Scott Hall subsequently taking plea deals in exchange for agreeing to testify in that case. In Michigan, the attorney general dropped all charges against defendant Jim Renner in exchange for his cooperation.
ABC News previously reported that Trump’s Georgia co-defendant Michael Roman was subpoenaed as part of the Arizona probe and that Chesebro sat for a voluntary interview with Arizona investigators in recent weeks.
(NEW YORK) — A bill aimed at furthering restrictions on discussions of “gender identity or sexual orientation” in public schools is progressing in the Alabama legislature, passing the state House on Tuesday.
Current law states that classrooms in kindergarten through the fifth grade “shall not engage in classroom discussion or provide classroom instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
The bill would expand this restriction to eighth grade and prohibit flags symbolizing sexual orientations or gender identities in K-12 schools.
Gender identity, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is “an individual’s sense of their self as man, woman, transgender, or something else.”
Sexual orientation refers to “a person’s sexual and emotional attraction to another person and the behavior and/or social affiliation that may result from this attraction,” according to the CDC.
State Rep. Mack Butler, the bill’s sponsor, said in a March hearing the bill is a response to “some indoctrination going on.” He said the bill seeks to “purify the schools.”
“It is a component of Marxism where we’re — you know — destroying the family and teaching some of these things,” said Butler. “Let it happen somewhere else other than our schools.”
Critics argue that these restrictions, dubbed “Don’t Say Gay,” could broadly restrict conversation about gender and sexuality –including both non-LGBTQ and LGBTQ identities.
They also argue that the bill violates students’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights, and could silence LGBTQ students and teachers in classrooms.
“If HB130 passes, it will rid classrooms and students in the state of Alabama of inclusive discussion that is essential at all stages of life,” the ACLU of Alabama said in a statement against the legislation.
A similar law in Florida sparked controversy for its restrictions and inspired almost identical policies across the country. However, a settlement was reached in a lawsuit against the legislation.
A judge decided that students and educators can discuss LGBTQ topics or write about such topics in their work, as long as those conversations are not part of formal curriculum, with both sides of the debate claiming the decision as a win.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) pauses as he speaks during a press conference at Columbia University on April 24, 2024 in New York City. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — During a visit to Columbia University on Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson joined his New York House Republican colleagues in calling on the school’s president, Minouche Shafik, to resign unless she can improve what he called her failure to handle the anti-Israel protests on campus.
In a news conference on the university’s campus, Johnson said Shafik should step down “if she can’t immediately bring order to this chaos.”
“As speaker of the House, I am committing today that the Congress will not be silent as Jewish students are expected to run for their lives and stay home from their classes — fighting in fear,” Johnson said.
The scene at the news conference was rowdy itself, as Johnson and other House Republicans got booed and heckled throughout — sometimes nearly drowned out by shouting from the crowd.
“The cherished traditions of this university are being overtaken right now by radical and extreme ideologies. They place a target on the backs of Jewish students in the United States and here on this campus,” Johnson said.
He said he planned to speak to President Joe Biden, whose administration has also condemned any antisemitic demonstrations, once he departed the campus to “share with him what we have seen with our own two eyes and demand that he take action.”
“There is executive authority that would be appropriate,” Johnson said.
“If this is not contained quickly, and if these threats and intimidation are not stopped — there is an appropriate time for the National Guard. We have to bring order to these campuses. We cannot allow this to happen around the country. We are better than this. We are better than this. And I will ask the president to do that, and I will tell him the very same thing,” Johnson said.
Last week, more than 100 pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested at Columbia as they called for the divestment of college and university funds from Israeli military operations.
Other participants in Columbia’s ongoing, encampment-style protests were suspended and removed from campus.
The demonstrations, which began on April 17, followed Shafik’s testimony to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce about antisemitism on college campuses. New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, a leading conservative, called for Shafik’s resignation days later, writing in a post on X that Columbia “failed to enforce their own campus rules and protect Jewish students on campus.”
Testifying before the congressional committee last week, Shafik said she has taken actions to combat antisemitism on campus since a terror attack on Oct. 7 sparked Israel’s war with Hamas, including enhancing Columbia’s reporting channels, hiring staff to investigate complaints and forming an antisemitism task force.
“Safety is paramount and we would do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of our campus,” Shafik said. “We must uphold freedom of speech because it’s essential to our academic mission, but we cannot and shouldn’t tolerate abuse of this privilege to harass and discriminate.”
The presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania resigned from their positions after testifying about campus culture and antisemitism before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce earlier this year.
Shafik, who met with Johnson on Wednesday, and the rest of the university administration are committed to ensuring the safety of the campus community and ending the encampment, Columbia spokesman Ben Chang said in a briefing with reporters later on Wednesday.
The student encampment on campus has raised serious safety concerns, Chang said.
The university and some of its representatives have been in dialogue with students on ending the encampment and Chang said the university believes those discussions will ultimately be “successful.”
Following the arrests at Columbia, student protests have appeared elsewhere in the U.S., including at Yale University, New York University, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tufts University and across the country — at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Southern California.
Criticism of Israel in the U.S. and internationally has been mounting as a humanitarian crisis unfolds in Gaza amid Israel’s attempt to destroy Hamas terrorists.
Johnson, who also met with Jewish students at Columbia, said “their bravery is inspiring, much more inspiring than some of the activities we’re seeing here. They should never have to confront such hate on an American college campus instead of such a revered institution.”
His visit comes as the Israel-Hamas war continues to be highly politicized. Johnson earned bipartisan praise for his reversal on a foreign aid package that Biden signed into law Wednesday that included roughly $26 billion for Israel as its war with Hamas rages on in Gaza.
Hamas is thought to still be holding dozens of hostages taken in its October terror attack, which killed 1,200.
More than 34,000 people have died in Gaza since the war began, according to the Hamas-run health ministry there.
The protests on U.S. campuses have been largely peaceful, according to school administrators, with some, including New York police, as well as protesters blaming individuals not affiliated with the schools for instances of violence and offensive or antisemitic rhetoric.
