(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court is taking up a historic case challenging Donald Trump’s ability to hold office again over his role in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump is asking the justices to overturn an unprecedented Colorado Supreme Court decision deeming him ineligible to appear on the state’s GOP primary ballot because, it said, he “engaged in insurrection.” Trump has long denied any wrongdoing.
The legal battle centers on a previously obscure provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment — Section 3 — ratified shortly after the Civil War.
The case is casting a political shadow over the nation’s highest court not has not been seen since the 2000 election with Bush v. Gore.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Feb 08, 10:02 AM
Scenes from outside the U.S. Supreme Court
Ahead of the historic arguments, some anti-Trump demonstrators gathered outside the front of the building with banners and signs disparaging the former president.
Police also took steps to ramp up security by placing fencing around the court.
Feb 08, 9:38 AM
What Americans think SCOTUS should do with Trump ballot challenges
An ABC News/Ipsos poll found a majority of Americans (56%) were willing to see Trump disqualified in all or some states: 30% said the U.S. Supreme Court should bar him completely and 26% said it should let each state decide.
Thirty-nine percent said the U.S. Supreme Court should keep Trump on the ballot in all states.
Americans were split on the decisions out of Maine and Colorado to bar Trump from the ballot: 49% supported them while 46% were opposed.
Feb 08, 9:52 AM
What to know about the arguments
There are 80 minutes total allotted for arguments but the court is expected to go over that timeframe.
A number of questions are likely to be debated: Is Trump an “officer” of the United States to whom Section 3 applies; who can enforce Section 3; and did Trump engage in an insurrection?
Trump is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. The Colorado voters are being represented by Jason Murray, a former clerk to Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Neil Gorsuch.
(WASHINGTON) — Hackers from the People’s Republic of China spent up to five years in U.S. networks as part of a cyber operation that targeted U.S. critical infrastructure, law enforcement and international agencies said earlier this week.
“The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) assess that People’s Republic of China (PRC) state sponsored cyber actors are seeking to preposition themselves on IT networks for disruptive or destructive cyberattacks against U.S. critical infrastructure in the event of a major crisis or conflict with the United States,” an alert released by the agencies earlier this week said.
The yearslong operation by the state-sponsored cyber actor — called Volt Typhoon by U.S. authorities — was a way for China to position themselves for an attack on U.S. critical infrastructure using malware, officials said on a call with reporters.
CISA Assistant Director Eric Goldstein said the hackers were in U.S. systems for “up to five years.”
“CISA and its U.S. Government partners have confirmed that this group of PRC state-sponsored cyber actors has compromised entities across multiple critical infrastructure sectors in cyberspace, including communications, energy, transportation, and water and wastewater, in the United States and its territories,” a release about the incident said.
The Chinese cyber actors aimed to “launch destructive cyber-attacks that would jeopardize the physical safety of Americans and impede military readiness in the event of a major crisis or conflict with the United States,” the release said.
Last week, the FBI used a court order to disrupt Volt Typhoon actors from their hacking operation.
The advisory builds upon CISA Director Jenn Easterly and FBI Director Christopher Wray’s testimony last week — in which they warned that Chinese hackers could disrupt Americans’ way of life.
“The Volt Typhoon malware enabled China to hide, among other things, pre-operational reconnaissance and network exploitation against critical infrastructure like our communications, energy, transportation, water sectors steps — China was taking in other words to find and prepare to destroy or degrade the civilian critical infrastructure that keeps us safe and prosperous,” Wray told a House panel last week. “And let’s be clear, cyber threats to our critical infrastructure represent real world threats to our physical safety.”
The agencies wrote in an alert that they are “concerned” about the implications of the cyber operation.
“The U.S. authoring agencies are concerned about the potential for these actors to use their network access for disruptive effects in the event of potential geopolitical tensions and/or military conflicts,” an alert released by the agencies said. “The U.S. authoring agencies assess with high confidence that Volt Typhoon actors are pre-positioning themselves on IT networks to enable lateral movement to OT assets to disrupt functions.”
Last week, Easterly warned that the Colonial Pipeline hack in 2021, which briefly shut off pipeline access for part of the country and caused panic, is something that could happen on a much wider scale, if China had their way.
“We know that what we have found is the tip of the iceberg,” Goldstein said.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will consider a historic challenge to former President Donald Trump’s ability to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
It will be the first time that Trump’s status, or that of any presidential candidate, will be considered under this constitutional clause at the nation’s highest court, and it is one of the largest presidential election cases heard by the high court since 2000, when they confirmed the election of President George W. Bush.
The landmark case began in September in Colorado, when a group of six Republican and unaffiliated voters represented by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a challenge against Trump and Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat who oversees the primary election process in the state.
Their lawsuit centered on Section 3, a rarely-invoked, civil-war era clause that states that someone isn’t eligible for future office if, while they were in office, they took an oath to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or [gave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.
Proponents of this theory claim it applies to Trump because of his actions after he lost the 2020 election but sought to reverse the results, including on the morning of Jan. 6. Trump maintains he did nothing wrong.
Colorado’s Supreme Court decided in December that Trump would be barred from their GOP primary ballot, ruling that he had “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6. They said that Secretary Griswold would commit a “wrongful act” under state election law if she placed his name on the list. The order was quickly appealed by the Colorado Republican party and Trump’s legal team to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case could have lasting implications on the upcoming 2024 general election cycle. It puts Trump (the Republican front-runner) and the justices (including three Trump himself appointed) face to face ahead of what’s ramping up to be a consequential rematch between Trump and current President Joe Biden.
The Supreme Court Justices are expected to consider some unprecedented constitutional questions during this case, and will be confronted with debate over whether Trump engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6. There are sweeping ramifications for the court’s reputation, public trust and ongoing litigation against Trump.
What is the Supreme Court deciding?
Did the Colorado Supreme Court rule correctly in ordering Trump is off of the 2024 presidential primary ballot under the 14th Amendment? Is it therefore a “wrongful act” under state election law for him to be placed on the ballot by the Secretary of State?
How will the case be heard on Thursday?
The Supreme Court agreed in early February to hear this case, docketed as Trump v. Anderson, on Feb. 8.
The court convenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday and oral arguments will start around 10:20 a.m. The arguments are formally allotted 80 minutes total but are expected to exceed this timeframe.
Trump’s attorney will begin the hearing with an opening statement, followed by questioning by the Justices. Next, each justice is called on in order of seniority to have an uninterrupted opportunity to question counsel. This process will replicate for the legal counsel of the Colorado voters and Secretary of State Griswold’s representation. The arguments will end with rebuttal by one of Trump’s attorneys.
The case will be submitted at the conclusion of oral arguments. The court is not expecting to issue an opinion on the case immediately, though there is a non-binding deadline for a decision: March 5, when Colorado will hold their 2024 primary election.
Who is representing each side?
Trump will be represented by Jonathan F. Mitchell, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and former Texas Solicitor General who is credited with devising SB8, Texas’ novel anti-abortion law which deputized everyday citizens to bring suits against anyone involved with the procedure. He has previously argued cases before the Supreme Court and has been on the law school faculties of Stanford, University of Texas, University of Chicago and George Mason.
The Colorado voters who sued to have Trump removed from the ballot will be represented by Jason C. Murray, a Harvard Law graduate and former clerk to Justice Elena Kagan and to Justice Neil Gorsuch, while he was on the 10th circuit. Murray has extensive trial lawyer experience.
Colorado Secretary of State Jenna Griswold will be represented by the state Solicitor General Shannon W. Stevenson, a Duke law graduate and former appeals court clerk who has a prestigious career in Colorado state law.
Central arguments
The hearing will likely address a number of previously undecided questions, including whether Section 3 is considered “self-executing,” — meaning, if elections officials wouldn’t need special permission from lawmakers to disqualify Trump from the ballot — the precise application and definition of the “officer” language in the provision, and most importantly: the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to a presidential candidate.
How did the case play out in Colorado?
The Supreme Court is the final stop in Trump v. Anderson’s monthslong journey from a Denver District Court.
After the Colorado voters filed their lawsuit in September, a blockbuster five-day evidentiary hearing starting on Oct. 30 was the first time that Section 3 was tried in court against a candidate for the U.S. presidency — and the first legal test of escalating efforts to keep Trump off GOP primary ballots during the 2024 election.
CREW President Noah Bookbinder has said that his organization brought its suit in Colorado because “it is necessary to defend our republic both today and in the future.” Trump and his campaign have dismissed the 14th Amendment clause being used against him. Ahead of the Colorado evidentiary hearing, both sides said this case is likely to be punted up to the United States Supreme Court.
District Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled against the group of Colorado voters on Nov. 17, citing “competing interpretations” of the constitutional clause, and a “lack of definitive guidance in the text or historical sources” in order to rule its application to Trump.
But she also issued a first-of-its-kind ruling that Trump, or any presidential candidate, had engaged in insurrection.
Both the legal team for Trump and the group of Colorado voters then appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court over a lower court’s ruling — the voters over Wallace’s final judgment and Trump over her ruling that he engaged in insurrection.
The state Supreme Court took up the case, and on Dec. 6 they heard a two-hour hearing. The seven-justice court posed sharp questions central to the case, including on the definition of insurrection; whether the Capitol riot that occurred on Jan. 6, was an insurrection; and whether the “insurrectionist ban” applies to a U.S. president.
A four-justice Supreme Court majority decided on Dec. 19 that the former president “engaged in insurrection,” and was thus disqualified from the primary ballot.
“President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary,” the justices wrote.
“Moreover,” they wrote, “the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power.”
They predicted that the matter would wind up before the high court — staying the ruling until Jan. 4, 2024, saying it would maintain the status quo pending any review from the nation’s high court.
What happens to the outstanding 14th Amendment challenges following SCOTUS’s ruling?
Dozens of similar challenges to his candidacy — filed by individual voters, former politicians, a current Republican presidential candidate and government oversight and watchdog organizations — have been weighed by lower courts, election boards or secretaries of state over the past year across roughly 34 states.
Trump has been declared ineligible to participate in a state’s primary process only twice: by the Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state, though he is still on the ballot in both places as each challenge is pending appeal.
Maine was the second state to order Trump off their ballot, with Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issuing her decision on Dec. 28, a little over a week after Colorado’s ruling. That order was appealed by Trump’s team to the state’s top trial court, which on Jan. 17 deferred ruling until after the Colorado case was settled at SCOTUS — a ruling that still stands.
At least nine legal challenges related to the 14th Amendment are pending — 11 total with the Maine and Colorado cases included.
A number of the outstanding challenges were brought by Republican write-in presidential candidate John Anthony Castro, who told ABC News on Tuesday that he has only five pending challenges, in Arizona, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina and West Virginia. There are also pending challenges in Wyoming, Illinois and Massachusetts courts. Another voter’s challenge with the North Carolina State Board of Elections is also pending.
Castro said that his efforts are intended to serve as an insurance policy in the event that SCOTUS dismisses the Colorado case on purely procedural grounds. In that case, he could still mount 14th Amendment challenges on merit-based issues.
If the Supreme Court rules on decisive questions, like that Trump engaged in insurrection, all of the pending challenges could be declared moot. But if the court rules on the because of election scheduling or state-based election law, 14th Amendment challenges could ostensibly continue across states outside of Colorado.
(WASHINGTON) — The head of a top unit at the Department of Homeland Security says in a new interview that “sensitive” materials are showing up overseas — in Iranian weapons — in the latest warning about how U.S. adversaries are believed to be trying to steal American technology.
“The Iranian drones that are being recovered on the battlefield in Ukraine, that are being recovered on the battlefield throughout the Middle East, they do have sensitive U.S. communications systems and they have sensitive microelectronics,” Jim Mancuso, the assistant director of the Global Trade Division at Homeland Security Investigations, told ABC News.
Iran, China and Russia are all “attempting to illegally acquire” U.S. technology, Mancuso said.
Homeland Security Investigations is the Department of Homeland Security’s law enforcement arm.
U.S. leaders have already warned about China trying to cause harm to the country through cyber means — as well as stealing the United States’ intellectual property.
Mancuso said adversaries of America are using a “very extensive network” to get U.S. technology out of the country, in violation of export laws.
Specialized “procurement networks” are repacking the goods and routing them through China in order to get to places like Iran, Mancuso said.
Some of the technology that is being exported can be found in common household items like radios, he said.
“They’re going to go to China, and then from China, they’re going to be loaded on an Iranian aircraft and they’re going to be flown to Iran,” he said, giving an example of how an adversary could gain access to microchips and other tech.
A similar pattern has been seen with Russia, Mancuso said.
“We’re looking at these Russian networks that are operating in this country, and we know that they’re repackaging sensitive U.S. equipment and is going onward to further the Russian war effort [in Ukraine],” he explained.
Mancuso said authorities are targeting the “procurement networks” and HSI investigations begin when U.S. materials are found where they shouldn’t be.
“We’re always trying to stay one step ahead,” he said.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., prepares to address the media about Tuesday’s failed impeachment vote of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, on Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2024. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday addressed two defeats for the Republican Party that unfolded on the House floor Tuesday evening, prompting criticism of his leadership and the GOP’s ability to govern.
“Last night was a setback, but democracy is messy,” Johnson told reporters on Capitol Hill, seeking to soften the losses. “We live in a time of divided government. We have a razor-thin margin here, and every vote counts.”
House Republicans, in back-to-back votes, failed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and to push through a stand-alone bill to provide aid to Israel amid its conflict with Hamas.
“What would you say to Americans concerned that Congress isn’t able to do basic functions?” Johnson was asked by ABC News’ Jay O’Brien.
Johnson replied, “It’s just simply not true. We’re governing here. Sometimes it’s messy.”
“The framers anticipated that you would have a system where people with very different philosophical viewpoints, that come from different parts of the country and different constituencies would have different ideas on how to resolve their problems,” he continued. “But what they also anticipated is that we’d be able to get in the room and arm wrestle over public policy and come to consensus to move the ball forward for the most people.”
The Mayorkas vote came down to the wire, with Johnson choosing to forge ahead despite indications that some within his conference planned to vote against it. An unexpected appearance from one Democrat and three Republican defections tanked the resolution in a 216 to 214 vote.
Johnson said Wednesday that he will bring the impeachment articles up for a vote again and projected confidence it will pass. He didn’t elaborate on when that vote may take place.
“Mayorkas needs to be held accountable and the Biden administration needs to be held accountable, and we will pass the articles of impeachment,” he said. “We’ll do it on next round.”
Speaking on the Israel aid bill, Johnson laid blame on Democrats for opposing the measure. That bill failed 250-180, mostly along party lines though 14 Republicans opposed it and more than 40 Democrats supported it.
President Joe Biden has expressed opposition to the bill, citing House Republicans’ opposition to a bipartisan supplemental package that includes aid to Israel aid Ukraine as well as significant immigration reforms.
Both Biden and Johnson are accusing the other of playing politics on the issue.
“I think they did it to their detriment,” Johnson said of Democratic opposition to the stand-alone Israel bill. “And it’s a very shameful thing at a time when our ally Israel needs the help desperately.”
(WASHINGTON) — Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel looks increasingly likely to leave her leadership role in the party amid frustration from some committee members and very public prodding from former President Donald Trump.
Multiple sources familiar with a conversation between her and Trump have told ABC News that they discussed the possibility of her resigning from her position after the South Carolina primary, on Feb. 24.
And while the talks remain fluid, Michael Whatley, who serves as the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, has emerged as a prominent contender to serve as McDaniel’s replacement. (“Nothing has changed. This will be decided after South Carolina,” an RNC spokesperson said in a statement.)
The uncertainty over McDaniel’s role and the RNC’s direction in general — also given its poor fundraising last year — is playing out as Trump gears up for a likely general election battle against President Joe Biden.
What does the RNC chair do?
While the chair of the RNC ostensibly has a big title, leading the main party organ, the job is not quite as significant as it sounds.
For example, the Republican chair is not in constant communication with congressional leaders guiding legislation on Capitol Hill — nor are they inside the White House every day or helping direct the choices of the party’s numerous elected state and local officials.
However, the RNC head does play a significant role in fundraising and organizing for state parties to help solidify infrastructure for the party’s candidates up and down the ballot. And on top of that, the chair serves as a significant megaphone to amplify whatever the GOP’s message is for that particular election cycle.
“Basically, the RNC’s job is to raise money to then do essentially two things: One, pump it directly back into targeted states to set up voter targeting operations; and the other is to build out a political structure in D.C. to aid those efforts. And yes, then there is some more kind of nationalized things like that, communications being an important part,” said Doug Heye, a former RNC communications director.
Does it matter that this is happening in an election year?
Such turmoil at the top of the RNC during an election year may seem like it could cause issues with the winning chances of the party’s 2024 nominee — but it’s unlikely to register in the polls in November, experts said.
The presumptive nominee typically has significant sway over how the RNC functions. And Trump, the current front-runner for the nomination, is not a typical presumptive nominee. He’s a former president who helped remake the GOP’s image and platform to match his own.
Party experts predicted that it’s possible Trump, given his influence, pushes McDaniel out entirely and replaces her with other allies. It’s also possible that McDaniel remains at the RNC in “more of a figurehead role,” while Trump-backers take on more of the party’s heavy lifting. But neither would be particularly unusual.
More broadly, the uncertainty may be drawing attention because of how loyal McDaniel has been to Trump.
“Whenever we have somebody become a nominee, they essentially take over the party. That’s what usually happens. That may be a new chair. That may be just bringing in your own people to actually run the thing while the current chair stays there in more of a figurehead role. It can be both,” Heye said.
“We’re paying more attention to it because Ronna Romney McDaniel has been very loyal to Donald Trump, and we see yet again that that that loyalty is misplaced,” Heye told ABC News.
“Part of it is the completely normal cycle of what happens in presidential years. The other part of it is the abnormal reality around Donald Trump,” he argued.
Who is Whatley?
Should McDaniel leave her role and Whatley be tapped to replace her, the North Carolinian would have to be elected by a majority of the 168 RNC members.
Such a victory is no sure thing, given that Whatley lost out to the current RNC co-chair, Drew McKissick, when the two ran for that role last year — but now, Whatley could be supported by the party’s presumptive nominee, who is given a particularly large amount of deference in a presidential year.
His elevation would mark the promotion of a bona fide election denier after Whatley vociferously endorsed Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud in 2020.
“There are gonna be a lot of overwrought things. ‘Election denier RNC chair!'” Heye said, mimicking reactions to Whatley’s hypothetical elevation. “What … do you expect? It’s Donald Trump.”
(WASHINGTON) — The federal government’s record-high national debt is set to get even bigger, reaching a massive $54 trillion by the year 2034.
That’s according to a new forecast released Wednesday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The CBO cited an aging population and rising federal health care costs as key reasons the national debt will soar over the next decade. U.S. national debt surpassed $34 trillion for the first time in January this year.
Higher interest rates — which have affected consumers’ finances with more expensive mortgages, auto loans and credit card rates — are also having a big impact on the government’s expenditures.
Starting next year, interest costs in relation to the overall economy will be bigger than at any point since 1940.
The CBO said it expects the Federal Reserve will start to lower interest rates in the middle of this year.
In positive news: the CBO said legislation enacted in the wake of the debt ceiling drama last year will result in a lower budget deficit than previously expected. The budget deficit refers to the difference between how much money the federal government brings in (mainly through taxes) versus how much it spends.
The CBO also said the budget deficit is smaller than expected because of a strong economy and jobs market. The agency singled out an additional 5.2 million workers who entered the labor force last year, many of them immigrants.
Still, the budget deficit is on track to grow to $1.6 trillion this year and $2.6 trillion over the next decade.
“Our debt is rising out of control, and it’s time for Congress to wake up,” Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a statement to ABC News.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s senior aides plan to meet with Muslim and Arab American leaders in Michigan on Thursday, as he continues to face sharp criticism from those groups — as well as some progressive and younger voters — for his response to the Israel-Hamas war.
A source familiar with Biden’s plans confirmed the upcoming meeting, which will include Steve Benjamin, the administration’s public engagement director; Mazen Basrawi, the liaison between the White House and American Muslim communities; the U.S. Agency for International Development administrator, Samantha Power; the principal deputy national security adviser, Jon Finer; and Tom Perez, the intergovernmental affairs director.
Jaime Citron and Dan Koh, other top Biden aides, will also attend, the source added.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Wednesday that the administration is focused on outreach.
“The president has met with Americans with varying opinions about the conflict between Israel and Hamas. … Officials at the White House are also in regular contact with Muslim and Arab American leaders in Michigan, across the country,” she said.
The planned meeting comes as the president has had to repeatedly contend with pro-Palestinian protestors who have been vocal in their opposition to how he has handled the American response since Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attack on Israel sparked a war, in which Israel has been bombarding Gaza as it targets Hamas fighters.
More than 27,000 people have been killed, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health; 1,200 people have died in Israel, the prime minister’s office said.
Biden has faced demonstrators interrupting his speeches in recent weeks, including last month when he was interrupted some 14 times in Virginia. Protester chants included “Genocide Joe” and “cease-fire now.”
Both the president and other administration officials have sought to stress their support for Israel’s campaign against Hamas while publicly urging Israel to take more care to lower civilian casualties. Biden said during a private meeting with some advocates in October that he needed to do a better job showing empathy after being accused of not caring more for Palestinians.
Though Michigan includes notable Muslim and Arab communities, Biden did not meet with leaders there last week when he made his first visit to the swing state since the war began.
His visit was met instead with protests, with pro-Palestinian demonstrations taking place outside two of his campaign stops in the Detroit area. One led to a tense standoff with riot police.
Protestors there were calling on voters to cast “uncommitted” ballots in the state’s Democratic primary, later this month, to embarrass the president.
Thursday’s scheduled meeting with senior White House advisers also follows an attempt from Biden’s campaign to meet with Muslim and Arab American leaders in the state last month — which was largely rebuffed.
Abdullah H. Hammoud, the mayor of Dearborn, a Detroit suburb, was one of the many leaders who rejected a meeting with Biden’s campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez. Last week, a source familiar with the mayor’s thinking told ABC News that Hammoud would be open to meeting with White House officials who can affect change, rather than with the campaign.
A spokesperson then confirmed on Wednesday that he will be at Thursday’s meeting.
“Mayor Abdullah H. Hammoud has been clear that this is not the time for electoral politics. He has remained open to meeting with senior policy officials, predicated on the Biden Administration’s willingness to change course in Gaza,” the spokesperson said in a statement, adding, “Mayor Hammoud will engage in conversation about policy change, centering on the lived experiences of the people of Gaza and amplifying the demands of the Dearborn community.”
Michigan is a critical battleground that Biden narrowly won in 2020 and that his campaign is working to win again in a likely November rematch with former President Donald Trump, who carried the state in a close race in 2016.
Michigan also has the largest population of Middle Eastern or North African descent of all the battleground states, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Wayne County, home to Dearborn and Detroit, has the largest of any county.
Over the weekend, Biden reacted to a controversial Wall Street Journal opinion article that called Dearborn “America’s Jihad Capital.”
“Americans know that blaming a group of people based on the words of a small few is wrong,” he posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “That’s exactly what can lead to Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate, and it shouldn’t happen to the residents of Dearborn – or any American town. We must continue to condemn hate in all forms.”
Hammoud said his city was increasing its police presence at places of worship, citing the “inflammatory” article. He also said there had been an “alarming increase” in anti-Arab sentiment online targeting the city since the op-ed was published.
The opinion article’s author has defended his work, telling NPR, “Hate against anybody is terrible, of course. And I don’t accept that this article is inciting to that.”
(LAS VEGAS) — Following a bruising defeat in the Nevada’s Republican primary on Tuesday, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley sought to brush off the fact that she came in second to “none of these candidates” — her third straight loss in the presidential race so far — and said her campaign focus is on other, bigger states.
She also reiterated that she never saw much point in seriously competing against former President Donald Trump in Nevada, which is holding two different nominating contests: the primary she ran in, which didn’t award delegates to earn the GOP nomination, and the party-run caucuses on Thursday, which will.
“We always knew Nevada was a scam,” Haley said on Fox Business on Wednesday. “Trump had it rigged from the very beginning. There are multiple press stories on that. … They wanted us to pay $55,000 to just participate in their caucus. So we didn’t spend a day or $1 there. We weren’t even worried about it.”
Haley’s campaign previously called the caucuses “rigged,” an allegation the Nevada Republican Party has repeatedly denied.
Haley said on Fox Business that her current focus is on South Carolina, Michigan and Super Tuesday, on March 5, when many states will vote simultaneously.
Olivia Perez-Cuba, a spokeswoman for the Haley campaign, released a statement on Tuesday following the former governor’s loss, echoing Haley’s sentiments.
“Even Donald Trump knows that when you play penny slots the house wins,” she said, adding, “We’re full steam ahead in South Carolina and beyond.”
Haley had largely skipped campaigning in Nevada altogether. Instead of being in the state on Tuesday, she attended fundraisers in California, where she is also hosting campaign events throughout the day on Wednesday.
Though she still trails Trump in both polling and delegates, Haley has said it’s early in the primary season — and she’s not going anywhere.
Her campaign schedule reflects that. Following her swing in California this week, she’ll head back to South Carolina, where she’ll hold two campaign events this weekend in the lead-up to the Feb. 24 primary there.
ABC News’ Nicholas Kerr and Soo Rin Kim contributed to this report
(WASHINGTON) — As expected, the Senate’s vote to advance the bipartisan national security supplemental bill with the negotiated border provisions failed on Wednesday. It’s the first of two votes Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is forcing on the bill — the second of which removes the border provisions, but maintains foreign aid measures.
In the procedural vote, the Senate voted 49-50 to proceed with the national security supplemental bill, which includes aid for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan as well as the new border policy deal. Sixty votes were needed to advance the legislation.
Republicans in the Senate had signaled that they would sink the national security supplemental bill — despite pleas from key negotiators just before the vote. The Senate will soon vote on the second option Schumer presented, which is a procedural vote on whether to begin debate on a national security package that includes the foreign aid but none of the border provisions or funds. It is unclear whether that will get the 60 votes necessary to advance to debate.
In the first vote, several senators crossed party lines with Republican Sens. James Lankford, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney voting to move forward with the bill while the rest of Republicans voted against it. Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez, Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, Alex Padilla, and Independent Bernie Sanders voted against moving forward. The rest of the Democrats voted in favor of moving forward.
Schumer switched his vote to a no at the end of the vote — a procedural move that allows him the opportunity to call the bill back up for reconsideration at a later date if he so chooses.
Schumer spoke to reporters about the Republican flip-flop on the border deal, noting that his GOP colleagues insisted on border provisions as a condition to passing Ukraine aid before changing their tune and suggesting moving forward on a package that drops the border provisions.
“So first Republicans said they would only do Ukraine and Israel humanitarian aid with border. Then they said they would not do it with border. Well, we’re going to give them both options,” Schumer said. “We’ll take either one. We just hope they can come to yes on something.”
It could be another blow to congressional Republicans who suffered two disappointing losses in the House Tuesday: the failure to pass the GOP-led impeachment efforts against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and the defeat of the Israeli aid package.
Schumer said he began devising a Plan B for the border supplemental when former President Donald Trump began weighing in and it became clear Republicans were turning on the package.
It’s not at all clear whether a national security supplemental without border provisions will get the 60 votes it needs to advance, but Schumer said he’d be willing to offer Republicans the opportunity to amend the package, if so.
A frustrated Lankford, who spent four months negotiating the border provisions with other senators, spoke on the floor before the votes and said that border security is a “problem that needs to be solved” and said bipartisan collaboration is needed to pass border provisions.
“We need a change in law — I understand we have differences, but we’ve got to sit down together to figure out how we will solve this problem because the American people sent us here to do that.”
The Oklahoma Republican said he remains willing to sit down with anyone who is interested in solving the problem at the border, because Americans are “ticked off” at the crisis and at congressional inaction.
“What I hear from most Oklahomans is ‘Do something. Don’t just sit there, do something — make progress but don’t allow this to keep going. Stop it where you can.’ So that’s what we worked to do,” Lankford said.
If the bill without border provisions does passing in the Senate, it’s unclear whether House Speaker Mike Johnson might bring the bill to the floor. Schumer said he hopes Johnson does.
“The House is in chaos it doesn’t behoove the speaker well to block everything because 30 hard-right-wing people just want chaos like Donald Trump does,” Schumer said.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said “in principle” he supports a national-security-only aid package without border provisions if the Senate can pass one.
“it’s certainly something that I support because we have to move forward in a comprehensive way to address our national security issues. After extreme Republicans have held our national security issues hostage around the border for months, and now have abandoned their own position,” Jeffries said at his weekly news conference.
Jeffries said “there are several Republicans who are not in leadership” who have voiced “willingness” to work together to advance a national security package. He did not name any specific Republicans.
Jeffries said he hopes the House can advance a national security supplemental when the chamber returns next week.
ABC News’ Lauren Peller and Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.
