Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Biden Administration is rolling out another pathway to debt relief for certain student loan borrowers next month.

The program targets people who took out smaller loan balances initially and have been paying their loans down for over a decade, unable to get out from under the debt. It’s a component of the SAVE Plan, a new income-driven repayment plan rolled out by the Biden administration last year.

Specifically, people will qualify if they took out less than $12,000 as their initial student loan balance and have been paying it down for 10 years. They also have to be enrolled in SAVE.

The shortened pathway to debt relief is largely intended to benefit people who went to community college or didn’t end up graduating from college but still incurred debt, officials said, which has historically been the group at highest risk for defaulting on their loans.

“If you’re paying it for 10 years, it’s enough,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in an interview on “Start Here,” ABC News’ daily podcast. “They’ve done their part and it’s time to release that debt so they can move on and continue to grow in their finances,” he said of borrowers.

“This is one strategy among many that is intended to open the doors to higher education, make it more affordable so that more folks can access it,” Cardona said to “Start Here” host Brad Mielke.

More than three in five borrowers with defaulted loans originally borrowed less than $12,000, Department of Education Under Secretary James Kvaal said.

Administration officials wouldn’t provide specifics on how many people will qualify for this new pathway to debt relief – but about 6.9 million people have enrolled in SAVE since it opened up last year, or about one-third of borrowers currently in repayment on their student loans, Kvaal said.

Going forward, the Department of Education estimates that the SAVE Plan will make 85% of future community college borrowers debt-free within 10 years.

But as with the broad headaches of the student loan payment restart this fall, the rollout of the SAVE Plan has not been without its hiccups. People attempting to enroll in SAVE during its early fall months faced long processing times for their applications, with around 450,000 applications pending for longer than 30 days, according to a January report from the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

The long processing times left some borrowers unable to enroll in a more affordable plan in time for the end of the three-year pause on student loan payments, which lifted this past fall — though borrowers have a yearlong grace period before they’ll be significantly penalized for missed payments.

On Thursday, senior administration officials said the majority of pending applications, which CFPB estimated were around 1.25 million total in October, had been processed, and that much of the backlog was alleviated — though officials wouldn’t quantify specifically how many were still pending.

The administration announced the SAVE Plan, including the shortened path to debt relief, last year, but said that particular component wouldn’t be ready until July. On Friday, the Biden administration celebrated the February rollout as an early victory.

“I am proud that my Administration is implementing one of the most impactful provisions of the SAVE plan nearly six months ahead of schedule,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “This action will particularly help community college borrowers, low-income borrowers, and those struggling to repay their loans.”

The department will start automatically discharging debts next month for people who qualify and are already enrolled in SAVE, without any effort needed from borrowers. The administration will also begin a campaign to get more people enrolled in SAVE, particularly people who took out low initial balances.

Debt relief is available to people who took out more than $12,000, too. For every $1,000 more that borrowers take out, one year is added to their repayment plan — so people who took out $14,000 could see their debt wiped clear after paying for 12 years.

The administration continues to market the SAVE Plan as the most affordable option for the majority of borrowers, and particularly people with high balances but low incomes.

The key benefits are that the plan offers a shorter path to debt relief than other income-driven repayment options, which require people to pay a portion of their income toward their loans for 20-25 years before their debt is relieved. The SAVE Plan also subsidizes payments to prevent runaway interest.

Meanwhile, for people who make less than minimum wage, their bills are set at $0. According to the Department of Education, 3.9 million of the nearly 7 million enrolled in SAVE so far – more than half of all enrollees – have payments of $0.

“SAVE is the first real student loan safety net in this country. It’s long overdue,” Cardona said.

And 75% of SAVE enrollees so far are Pell Grant recipients, which are grants given to low-income college students, the department said.

In July, another component of the plan will kick in, slashing the percentage of peoples’ income that they need to put toward their loan payments each month, from 10% down to 5% — a move that will further lower monthly bills.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Americans are divided on how the U.S. Supreme Court should handle former President Donald Trump’s ballot access, but a majority in a new ABC News/Ipsos poll say they would support the court either barring Trump from presidential ballots nationally or letting states take that step individually.

The national poll finds a close division on state-level rulings barring Trump from the ballot in Colorado and Maine, 49-46%, support-oppose. On next steps, 56% are willing to see him disqualified in all or some states, including 30% who say the high court should bar him in all states and 26% who say it should let each state decide.

Thirty-nine percent back a third option, saying the court should keep Trump on the ballot in all states.

The survey, produced by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos Public Affairs, also finds substantial support for the leveling of criminal charges against Trump, 56-39%. That contrasts with views on the impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden initiated last month by House Republicans, a step supported by 44% and opposed by 51%.

See PDF for full results, charts and tables.

A conviction, were it to happen, looks unlikely to shake Trump’s base: Among people with a favorable opinion of him, just 10% say a conviction would lower their opinion of Trump, while 12% say it would raise it.

At the same time, among all adults, 21% say a conviction would lower their opinion of the former president, including 15% of Republicans and 23% of independents (as well as 28% of Democrats). Independents often, albeit not always, are swing voters in presidential elections.

Strength of sentiment in the Trump and Biden cases is notable. Forty-one percent of Americans strongly support criminal charges against Trump, while many fewer, 24%, strongly oppose them. In Biden’s case, intensity is more closely distributed: 26% strongly support the impeachment inquiry, while 32% strongly oppose it.

Strength of sentiment doesn’t differentiate views of the Colorado and Maine rulings on Trump’s ballot access. In this case, 35% are strongly in support, while essentially as many, 34%, are strongly opposed.

SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear ballot access arguments on Feb. 8. The Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state have ruled that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol makes him ineligible for the presidency under the 14th Amendment.

The case marks a potential turn for the court after its unpopular June 2022 ruling eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion. Last spring, just 39% of Americans thought the court’s justices, in general, base their rulings on the law; 51% instead said they rule based on their personal political views. Today, more think the justices will rule on the basis of the law in the Trump ballot access case, 53%, while fewer, albeit still 43%, think they’ll rule based on their political views.

Groups

Partisanship weighs heavily in these results. The Biden impeachment inquiry is supported by 81% of Republicans vs. 14% of Democrats; the criminal charges against Trump, by 89% of Democrats vs. 21% of Republicans. The main difference is independents: While 43% support the Biden inquiry, many more, 61%, support the Trump charges.

Ideological preferences differentiate as well, with three-quarters of conservatives supporting the Biden inquiry while 92% of liberals back the Trump charges. Here the main difference in overall outcomes is moderates — 39% support the Biden inquiry, compared with 65% who support the Trump charges.

There’s a difference by race/ethnicity as well. Roughly equal numbers of white Americans, about half in each case, support both the Biden inquiry and the Trump charges. The Biden inquiry is supported by 44% of Hispanic people, dropping to 24% of Black people. The Trump charges, by contrast, are supported by more than six in 10 Black and Hispanic people alike.

These also differentiate views on Supreme Court action. For example, 58% of Democrats say the court should order Trump removed in all states; 77% of Republicans say it should order him to be maintained on all ballots. Here, independents are more apt to say he should remain (36%) than be removed (27%). But an additional 32% of independents favor letting each state decide.

At the same time, the shift in views on the court’s adherence to the law crosses party lines. Compared with general views last May, the view that the justices in this particular case will base their ruling on the law is 10 percentage points higher among Democrats, 15 points higher among independents and 18 points higher among Republicans.

Methodology

This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® Jan. 4-8, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,228 adults. Partisan divisions are 25-25-41%, Democrats-Republicans-independents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 2.5 percentage points, including the design effect. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.

The survey was produced by Langer Research Associates, with sampling and data collection by Ipsos Public Affairs. See details on ABC News survey methodology here.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he’s decided who his vice presidential pick will be if he wins the 2024 Republican nomination — but his campaign quickly downplayed that claim, saying the issue hasn’t been discussed in “any great detail.”

“I know who it’s going to be,” Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum during the network’s town hall on Wednesday, which he attended instead of the latest GOP primary debate.

Pressed on who that running mate is, Trump retorted, “I can’t tell you that really.”

Those comments seemingly caught his top aides off guard.

“All I know is what I heard tonight, and I’m not gonna categorize it any other way than that,” senior campaign adviser Chris LaCivita told reporters following the town hall.

Pressed on what types of conversations have happened around a potential vice presidential candidate pick, LaCivita said the talks have been minimal.

“I’m sure that when the time to discuss a VP … comes, everybody will know,” he added.

Multiple names are being floated for who could potentially be Trump’s running mate, including South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a former primary contender who has said he’s not interested in being vice president.

Those politicians have all spent time on the campaign trail touting Trump’s policies and repeatedly affirming their support for the former president. (Former Vice President Mike Pence, Trump’s previous running mate, broke with him in the wake of Jan. 6.)

Trump on Wednesday also spoke approvingly — if, perhaps, jokingly — about someone who until recently was running against him in the primary.

“I’ve already started to like [Chris] Christie better,” Trump said to laughs about mending relationships with his Republican challengers ahead of the general election.

However, Trump quickly threw cold water on the possibility of tapping the former New Jersey governor to be his vice president.

“I don’t see it. That would be an upset,” he said.

Others have suggested a ticket with Trump and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley would be a strong duo to defeat President Joe Biden; however, Trump allies have firmly opposed that idea in light of Haley’s challenge to Trump in the primary.

Noem recently said during an appearance on Newsmax that it would be a “mistake” for the former president to pick Haley as his running mate.

Donald Trump Jr., the former president’s eldest son, has said he would go to “great lengths” to assure Haley doesn’t join the Trump ticket.

Even Haley herself has publicly remained focused on defeating Trump, playing down the possibility of a No. 2 role without, as opponent Ron DeSantis has often noted, definitively ruling it out.

“First of all, I don’t play for second — I never have,” Haley told a voter last week, “and I’m not going to start now.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(DES MOINES, Iowa) — Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis clashed on Wednesday night at their first one-on-one debate of the 2024 Republican primary.

The two, who both trail former President Donald Trump nationally and in early primary states, according to 538’s polling average, engaged in frequently testy exchanges on their records in government and on an array of policy stances at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, the state that will host closely watched caucuses on Monday.

Trump, meanwhile, counterprogrammed the debate, hosted by CNN, with a town hall on Fox News.

Here are five takeaways from Wednesday night’s debate:

Trump on the back burner, with some exceptions

Trump maintains double-digit leads nationally and in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — three early voting states in the race — making him the candidate to beat. On Wednesday, he often barely got a mention except on a few key issues.

In a continuation of a monthslong trend, Haley and DeSantis, vying to be No. 2 to Trump in the polls, instead focused their fire on each other, seemingly in a bid to establish one or the other as the main alternative to Trump with just days left to persuade voters.

Both Haley and DeSantis said Trump should be at the debate. Haley specifically noted that the national debt rose during Trump’s presidency (during which time Trump implemented major tax cuts and responded to COVID-19) and swiped at Trump’s penchant for “drama” and “vengeance,” while DeSantis blamed some violence during social justice protests in 2020 on Trump since he was in the White House.

The two also touched on Trump’s controversial claim that presidents should have virtually complete legal immunity for actions taken in office — an effort to protect him from the criminal charges he now faces, which he denies. The immunity question is currently tied up in court.

“I’m not exactly sure what the outer limits are. I don’t think it’s necessarily been litigated,” DeSantis said.

Haley, meanwhile, said Trump’s claim was “absolutely ridiculous.”

She also called him out on another point — election denialism and Jan. 6.

Though she also mentioned that she believes there were “discrepancies” in the 2020 race, Haley said, “Trump lost that election. Trump lost it. [Joe] Biden won that election and the idea that he’s gone and carried this out forever, to the point that he’s going to continue to say these things to scare the American people, are wrong.”

Haley then said that she believes Trump “will have to answer” for what happened on Jan. 6.

Sharp differences on foreign policy

Haley and DeSantis staked out some of their most noticeable differences on foreign policy, including on Ukraine’s response to Russia’s invasion.

Haley has been vocal in her support for sending arms and other equipment to Ukraine as DeSantis has been more skeptical about prolonged and expansive financial support for Kyiv — a stance that Haley knocked him on.

“Nobody knows what he believes, because when President [Barack] Obama was in office, he supported foreign aid to Ukraine. Now he’s copying Trump and trying to act like he doesn’t want to support Ukraine,” Haley said.

“She supports this $106 billion that they’re trying to get through Congress,” DeSantis later said about Haley’s position, referring to a pending aid package for the country. “Where’s some of that money gone? They’ve done tens of billions of dollars to pay salaries for Ukrainian government bureaucrats. They’ve paid pensions for Ukrainian retirees with your tax dollars.”

“First of all, I have never said that we should give salaries or benefits or anything else to Ukrainians,” Haley retorted. “I did not support the aid package. I support equipment named munition going to Ukraine. I think it is incredibly important that we’re honest and say we have to focus on national security.”

The two did both voice unequivocal support for Israel as it fights against Hamas in Gaza in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attack, though DeSantis said he wouldn’t criticize Israel if it decided to permanently displace Palestinians from the territory — a controversial possibility floated by some Israeli government ministers that has been widely condemned internationally.

“So, as president, I am not going to tell them to do that. I think there is a lot of issues with that. But if they make the calculation that to avert a second Holocaust, they need to do that,” DeSantis said.

Lots of sharp elbows

Haley and DeSantis frequently went after each other in personal terms on a stage featuring just the two of them.

“Ron’s lying because Ron’s losing,” Haley said during the debate. “You’re so desperate. You’re just so desperate.”

Haley also touted a new website to highlight what she said were DeSantis’ “lies.”

DeSantis, meanwhile, said “one good rule of thumb: if she says she has never said something, that definitely means she said it, and then she’ll say, ‘You’re lying, you’re lying.’ That means not only did she say it, but she is on videotape saying it.”

The debate was characterized by many such similar exchanges, with DeSantis going on the offensive in casting Haley as beholden to “Wall Street” and ready to “cave to the woke mob” — as Haley responded that he was being misleading.

Abortion: DeSantis says Haley is ‘confused,’ Haley says to not ‘demonize’

On the topic of abortion access, DeSantis contended that Haley has been “confused” and said, “I think she’s trying to speak to different groups with different things” — seemingly referring to how Haley has not embraced restrictions as he has.

Haley described herself as “unapologetically pro-life” but warned against “playing politics” with the issue.

“Our goal should be: How do we save as many babies as possible and support as many moms as possible?” she said. “We are not going to demonize this issue anymore. We are not going to play politics with this issue anymore. We’re going to treat it like the respectful issue that it is.”

Notably, after DeSantis accused Haley of invoking a “trope” when she raised the prospect of some women receiving jail time for getting an abortion, she responded that there was such legislation in South Carolina.

Haley says 20-year-olds should plan on retirement age increasing

When asked about how each of them would address Social Security’s long-term funding issues, DeSantis assured voters that he “would never raise the retirement age in the face of declining life expectancy” and that he wasn’t going to “mess with seniors’ benefits.”

Haley took a shot at DeSantis, saying that in the past he voted to raise the life expectancy for three years in a row. She was also asked if voters in their 20s should plan on having to work until they’re 70 rather than 67, the current maximum cutoff.

“They should plan on their retirement age being increased, yes,” she said. “We’re going to change it to reflect more of what life expectancy should be.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(DES MOINES, Iowa) — Donald Trump on Wednesday weighed in again on abortion access when asked to clarify his stance on the issue, saying he was for exceptions to bans and that it was important in order to win elections.

“We’re living in a time when there has to be a little bit of a concession one way or the other,” the former president and 2024 candidate said during a Fox News town hall, which he participated in instead of the latest GOP primary debate.

“You have to win elections,” Trump also said. “Otherwise, you’re going to be back where you were, and you can’t let that ever happen again. You got to win elections.”

Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the national guarantee to abortion access in 2022, it has emerged as a major political issue in various states. A number of Republican-led states have adopted restrictions on the procedure.

At the same time, voters favor Democrats over Republicans on handling abortion and in swing states like Michigan, abortion has motivated voters to turn out in important elections, polling has shown.

Trump has sought to both tout his anti-abortion record while sounding more ambivalent about sweeping bans. He’s boasted of his role in the Supreme Court’s decision in reversing Roe, which was a key goal of conservatives for decades, given that he named three of the justices who joined that decision.

“If it weren’t for me, with Roe v. Wade, you wouldn’t even be talking about this stuff,” Trump said on Wednesday.

“For 54 years they were trying to get Roe v. Wade terminated, and I did it and I’m proud to have done it,” he said in a quote soon seized on by rival Joe Biden’s campaign.

But Trump has also suggested regulations should not be overly harsh, without committing to some specifics.

“I happen to be for the exceptions, like Ronald Reagan — with the life of the mother, rape, incest,” he said on Wednesday.

Trump then slammed 2024 challenger Ron DeSantis for the six-week abortion ban, with some exceptions, that DeSantis signed as Florida’s governor.

“If you talk five or six weeks, a lot of women don’t know if they’re pregnant … This has been tearing the country apart for 50 years, nobody’s been able to do anything,” Trump said.

“We’re going to come up with something that people want and people like,” he claimed, echoing what he told NBC News in an interview last year when he insisted that “I would sit down with both sides and I’d negotiate something.”

“I did something that nobody thought was possible, and Roe v. Wade was terminated. … Now, people, pro-lifers, have the right to negotiate for the first time,” he said then.

At the same time, Trump declined to say whether — if he were president again — he would sign federal legislation banning abortion.

“Now it’s going to work out. Now, the number of months [when a ban begins] will be determined,” he said on NBC, going on to say, “It could be state or it could be federal. I don’t frankly care.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(COLUMBUS, Ohio) — The Ohio House has voted to override Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto against Ohio House Bill 68 in a 65-28 vote. This bill would ban transgender minors from receiving gender-affirming medical care and prevent transgender girls from taking part in girls’ and women’s sports.

The Ohio Senate will vote on whether to override the veto on Jan. 24. Legislators need 60% of the vote in both houses to override the governor’s veto.

Physicians who provide this gender-affirming care for trans youth would be “subject to discipline by the applicable professional licensing board” under this legislation. The bill includes exceptions for this kind of care for non-transgender youth.

A grandfather clause allows transgender people already receiving care to continue doing so.

At least 21 states have implemented restrictions on access to gender-affirming care, many of which have faced legal challenges. A law banning gender-affirming care for minors in Arkansas was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge and similar laws have been blocked in Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Texas and Montana while the cases are tried.

DeWine vetoed the bill, saying that he agreed with several concerns highlighted by the legislature. However, he said he believed the bill as written would harm transgender youth and impede on families’ ability to make decisions after speaking with those who would be impacted by the legislation.

“The decisions that parents are making are not easy decisions,” DeWine said in the Dec. 29 press conference. “These tough, tough decisions should not be made by the government. They should not be made by the state of Ohio. They should be made by the people who love these kids the most. And that’s the parents, the parents who raised the child, the parents who have seen that child go through agony.”

He proposed rules to regulate gender-affirming care instead that would be less likely to be challenged in court — including bans on surgeries for minors.

“None of [the families] that I talked to talked about surgery,” said DeWine on Friday. “That’s not where they were going in the discussion. And I think that’s, frankly, a fallacy that’s out there that, you know, this goes right to surgery. It just doesn’t. All the children’s hospitals say that we don’t do surgeries.”

Physicians have told ABC News that doctors, families and patients often have many long conversations together to consider age-appropriate individualized approaches to care. This often begins with mental health care, they say.

For youth approaching puberty, puberty blockers are a reversible form of gender-affirming care that allows children to pause puberty and explore their gender identity without the growth of permanent sex characteristics that may cause further stress, according to physicians interviewed by ABC News.

Hormone therapy for older teens helps align a patient’s physical appearance with their gender identity. Patients are given estrogen or testosterone, and the changes from these medications occur slowly and are partially reversible.

Surgeries on adolescents are rare and only considered on a case-by-case basis, physicians have told ABC News.

DeWine also proposed reporting and data collection on those who receive care, as well as restrictions on “pop-up clinics” that serve the transgender community.

“I truly believe that we can address a number of goals in House Bill 68 by administrative rules that will have likely a better chance of surviving judicial review and being adopted,” DeWine said.

Gender-affirming care has been called safe and effective by more than 20 major national medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. The AMA has said this care can be medically necessary to improve the physical and mental health of transgender people.

Transgender youth are more likely to experience anxiety, depressed mood and suicidal ideation and suicide attempts due to discrimination and gender dysphoria, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Research shows that hormone therapy can improve the mental health of transgender adolescents and teenagers, a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found.

When asked if he had thoughts on the sports restrictions in the bill, DeWine said he “focused on the part of the bill that I thought affected the most people and the most children by far,” referring to the gender-affirming care portion of the bill.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In a blow to House Speaker Mike Johnson, a group of hard-line Republicans tanked a procedural vote on Wednesday in a revolt of a tentative funding deal he negotiated with Democrats to prevent a government shutdown.

Thirteen Republicans joined Democrats to effectively bring the House floor to a stop, with votes canceled for the rest of the day.

Johnson ignored questions as he left the chamber but later seemed to shrug off the setback during an interview with Fox News host Martha MacCallum.

“It’s going to survive,” Johnson said of the deal he worked out with the Senate and White House, which would set top-line spending for fiscal year 2024 at $1.59 trillion.

But Wednesday’s scene was deja vu for a House Republican majority that’s repeatedly struggled to coalesce on spending issues. Such internal strife was a key driver of the historic removal of Kevin McCarthy from the speakership.

The GOP lawmakers who voted against the rule were Reps. Andy Biggs, Eli Crane, Eric Burlison, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Matt Rosendale, Anna Paulina Luna, Ralph Norman, Chip Roy, Bob Good, Scott Perry, Tim Moore and Andy Ogles.

Earlier in the day, the House Republican conference huddled behind closed doors to discuss a path forward on funding the government. Several lawmakers voiced sharp criticism of the top-line spending deal as they exited the meeting.

“I am not voting for anything unless we shut the border dow,” Rep. Norman said. “I am not funding a government that’s putting this country at risk. That’s harming us. Either shut the border down or take the consequences.”

“I don’t like it,” said Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett. “Leadership cuts a deal, and it doesn’t necessarily represent the members.”

Ohio Rep. Warren Davidson said Speaker Johnson “should have never been hired” and Texas’ Roy has discussed the possibility of another motion to vacate the speaker.

Others, though, say they aren’t ready to abandon Johnson yet. Norman said the conference has to give Johnson “back up” and Good said he didn’t believe “someone whose been a speaker for two and half months should be judged the same way as someone who had been in leadership for the Republican Party for a decade or more,” referring to McCarthy.

Johnson, in his interview with Fox News, was asked if he thinks there will be any effort to oust him.

“There’s a lot of emotion here right now because there’s a lot of important emotional issues on the table,” he responded. “But what we have to do is be the adults in the room and govern … I don’t think I’m in any jeopardy of being vacated. It’s not something I walk around and think about what I’m thinking about this government’s trying to do well by the people.”

What about a continuing resolution?

Meanwhile, in the Senate, top Republican leader Mitch McConnell has said Congress will need to pass another short-term funding bill (or continuing resolution) before Jan. 19 in order to keep the government open and operating at current levels until legislation is agreed upon.

“Obviously we’re gonna have to pass a [continuing resolution] as well,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday during his weekly press conference. McConnell said it would be up to Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to determine how long the resolution would last.

But the idea of putting a continuing resolution on the House floor did not come up during the House Republican Conference meeting on Wednesday, according to several members.

The White House also didn’t appear enthusiastic about a short-term fix.

“This kicking the can down the road is not the way that Congress should be operating,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told ABC News White House Correspondent Karen Travers.

“We’ve been very clear about that,” Jean-Pierre continued. “They have a job to do. Keeping the government open is one of the basic things that they can do,” she told me. “House Republicans kicking this down the road does not help Americans. it doesn’t.”

If a deal isn’t struck before next Friday, a partial government shutdown will occur, impacting agriculture, energy, housing, and transportation programs. The remaining agencies will face a shutdown on Feb. 2.

ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Fallout continues Wednesday from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s secretive hospitalization, revealed to be for complications resulting from prostate cancer treatment, and the botched notification process that followed — including a Democrat’s call for his resignation and congressional Republicans’ demand that top Pentagon officials provide answers about who knew what and when.

Also, the White House is pointing the finger at the Pentagon for not answering relevant questions about Austin’s condition.

Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Deluzio called for Austin’s resignation Wednesday — the first Democrat to do so publicly.

“I have lost trust in Secretary Lloyd Austin’s leadership of the Defense Department due to the lack of transparency about his recent medical treatment and its impact on the continuity of the chain of command,” Deluzio, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.

Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told ABC News’ Steven Portnoy on Wednesday that he is not ready to join Deluzio in calling for Austin to resign, but said it’s not “an irrational conclusion” to believe that the secretary should step down.

Pointedly, Smith said it’s his view, after discussing the matter with Pentagon officials, that Austin bares the sole responsibility for the lack of disclosure. He added that it’s his understanding that privacy laws would have prevented key DOD officials from sharing Austin’s health information.

“This is on Secretary Austin, not his team,” Smith said.

The Pentagon has come under fire for not being more transparent about information regarding Austin’s hospitalization and a communication lapse that left top Pentagon officials and the White House unaware of his condition for days.

Sen. Roger Wicker, the ranking Republican in the Senate Armed Services Committee, has requested that Pentagon officials who were involved in the notification process respond to his committee by Jan. 19 and answer questions related to the timing and notifications of Austin’s hospitalization and who made the decisions not to notify the White House and other senior Pentagon leaders.

“We are deeply troubled by the apparent breakdown in communications between your office and the rest of the Department of Defense, the White House, and Congress over the past two weeks,” Wicker wrote in a letter to Austin sent Wednesday.

“Further, the apparent failure to even notify your lawful successor in this case is a massive failure of judgment and negligence,” Wicker wrote in a letter signed by all the Republicans on the committee.

“It is an intolerable breach of trust with the American people at a dangerous moment for U.S. national security,” wrote Wicker.

Wicker labeled Austin’s initial public statement last week as “wholly insufficient.”

On Tuesday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., announced that he was also requesting answers from the Defense Department about the lack of transparency about Austin’s hospitalization.

Rogers wrote three letters to Austin, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks and Austin’s chief of staff Kelly Magsamen requesting information regarding the events surrounding Austin’s hospitalization.

“It is unacceptable that neither the Department of Defense (‘Department’), the White House, nor the Congress were accurately informed of your position or capacity,” Rogers wrote in the letters. “With wars in Ukraine and Israel, the idea that the White House and even your own Deputy did not understand the nature of your condition is patently unacceptable.”

The White House and President Joe Biden did not learn until Tuesday that Austin had prostate cancer and that complications from a surgical procedure to treat it had resulted in his ongoing hospitalization at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Tuesday.

Kirby told ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang on Wednesday that Austin is a “key member of this administration, so we were all very curious as to what put him in the hospital.”

When asked what explanation the White House received from the Pentagon, Kirby simply reiterated that they didn’t get the information.

“There was no lack of curiosity on our part,” Kirby said.

The Pentagon has launched a 30-day review of the circumstances behind the delayed notifications of Austin’s hospitalization and has put in place immediate changes to ensure that top Pentagon and White House leaders are notified promptly whenever the defense secretary’s authorities are transferred to the deputy secretary.

The White House has also ordered an administration-wide review of current policies for similar notifications at other federal agencies.

The Pentagon said Wednesday that Austin is in the hospital Wednesday where he is “in contact with his senior staff and has full access to required secure communications capabilities and continues to monitor DOD’s day-to-day operations worldwide.”

ABC News’ Lauren Peller, Sarah Beth Hensley and Steven Portnoy contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is expected to end his 2024 presidential campaign on Wednesday, sources familiar told ABC News. Though Christie drew much attention as the Republican primary’s main Donald Trump critic, he failed to gain widespread traction in the polls.

This was Christie’s second campaign for the nation’s highest office. He ran in 2016 before suspending his bid and endorsing Trump, who went on to win the White House later that year.

Christie led Trump’s transition team and advised him while in office before eventually becoming one of Trump’s most vocal detractors within the GOP.

He defined his 2024 primary campaign in large part around renouncing Trump, calling his past support of the former president a “mistake” but arguing that Trump was the lesser of two evils in 2016 and 2020.

In December, he described Trump as acting like someone “who wants to be a dictator” and “doesn’t care” about democracy or the Constitution.

On the trail, Christie, with a brash New Jersey attitude and penchant for straight-talking town halls, has banked heavily on doing well in New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary on Jan. 23. He hoped success with the state’s avowedly independent-minded voters would be a catalyst for a meaningful challenge against Trump, who remains the front-runner.

Christie skipped out on campaigning for the Iowa caucuses, which will begin primary voting on Monday.

“I need your support to be able to keep this going,” he told potential voters in New Hampshire earlier this week. “I want to stand up to Donald Trump, and that’s what I’ve been doing every day of this campaign.”

Christie’s pitch to Republican voters still enamored of Trump was that it was time for the country and the party to move on. In his stump speeches, he frequently cited Trump’s 91 state and federal criminal charges — all of which Trump denies – and his election denialism as disqualifying for a presidential candidate.

Trump, for his part, dismissed Christie as a candidate and a former governor.

In recent weeks, Christie resisted mounting chatter about him leaving the race as more polls indicated that it was former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley with momentum against Trump in New Hampshire. Haley, Christie argued, had been too reluctant to directly attack Trump.

“As long as I think I got a chance to win this thing, I’m gonna fight every day to try to win. And with your help two weeks from tonight, we could shock the world if we do that,” he said in New Hampshire this week.

Of Haley, he said, “Whenever I came to the conclusion if I didn’t see a path to me winning, she has to earn my support. Not just because she’s the only one left standing against Donald Trump.”

Christie often found himself as an outlier among his primary opponents. As a supporter of Ukraine’s war against Russia’s invasion, he was one of two GOP candidates to visit the country in August even as more and more Republicans have questioned the value of continued military aid over other priorities.

As a former leader of a blue state, Christie also struck a more nuanced tone on some social issues compared with other primary hopefuls. He promised not to sign a six-week national abortion ban if one reached his desk as president — albeit after avoiding directly answering the question for months.

Christie also criticized bills pushed by other conservatives, like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, that sought to stop parents from acquiring hormone therapy and other gender-affirming care for transgender children. He referred to supporters of such laws, derisively, as “big government conservatives.”

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted to approve a resolution recommending Hunter Biden, the president’s son, be held in contempt for defying a congressional subpoena.

The vote was 23 to 14 in favor of advancing the measure to the full House.

Both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight Committee met Wednesday to consider similar contempt resolutions.

Hunter Biden, in a surprise appearance, defiantly walked into the House Oversight Committee hearing just after it had begun.

The move sparked outrage from Republicans, who’ve issued a congressional subpoena for him to sit for a closed-door deposition in their ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. The president’s son has said he would testify only in a public forum, and previously castigated the probe as “illegitimate.”

His arrival plunged the proceeding into chaos.

“You’re the epitome of white privilege, coming into the Oversight Committee, spitting in our face, ignoring a congressional subpoena to be deposed. What are you afraid of?” Republican Rep. Nancy Mace said just after he entered the room. She went on to say the younger Biden should be arrested and go “straight to jail.”

Mace was interrupted by another lawmaker, Democrat Jared Moskowitz, who said they could “hear from Hunter Biden right now” and called for a vote to have him speak.

A heated back and forth between Mace and Moskowitz ensued, with Arizona Republican Rep. Andy Biggs stepping into the fray to criticize his fellow committee members.

“Are we going to continue on with this blatant interruption? This is absurd and inappropriate … I think you should have decorum and courtesy and don’t act like a bunch of nimrods,” Biggs said.

Hunter Biden made his way into the hearing amid opening statements and took a seat in the front row. He was accompanied by his lawyer Abbe Lowell and Kevin Morris, a confidant and friend who helped Hunter Biden pay back taxes and penalties to the IRS.

Hunter Biden left a short time after, when the chairman called on Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to speak.

“Excuse me, Hunter, apparently you’re afraid of my words,” Greene said.

Lowell spoke to the press outside the hearing room, though Hunter Biden ignored shouted questions.

“Hunter Biden was and is a private citizen. Despite this, Republicans have sought to use him as a surrogate to attack his father,” Lowell said.

Lowell accused Republicans of caring “little about the truth” and trying to “hold someone in contempt who has offered to publicly answer all their proper questions.”

Ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, the Oversight Committee released a 19-page report recommending he be held in contempt of Congress, as well as the text of the proposed resolution.

“Mr. Biden’s flagrant defiance of the Committees’ deposition subpoenas — while choosing to appear nearby on the Capitol grounds to read a prepared statement on the same matters — is contemptuous, and he must be held accountable for his unlawful actions,” the report stated.

Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told Fox News he has the votes to get the resolution out of committee.

A full vote on the House floor would be held at a later date. Comer said it could happen early next week.

Hunter Biden was subpoenaed to sit for the closed-door interview on Dec. 13 but instead held a defiant news conference just outside the U.S. Capitol.

“I am here to testify at a public hearing, today, to answer any of the committees’ legitimate questions,” he said. “Republicans do not want an open process where Americans can see their tactics, expose their baseless inquiry, or hear what I have to say. What are they afraid of? I am here.”

Committee Republicans have countered that they are open to public testimony at an unspecified “future date” but “need not and will not accede to Mr. Biden’s demand for special treatment with respect to how he provides testimony.”

Comer, in his opening statement, said Hunter Biden’s refusal to comply with their subpoena is a “criminal act.”

“We will not provide Hunter Biden special treatment because of his last name. All Americans must be treated equally under the law, and that includes the Bidens,” Comer said.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the panel’s top Democrat, responded that they believe “everyone subpoenaed by Congress whether it’s Hunter Biden or Jim Jordan or Andy Biggs or Steve Bannon or Scott Perry should engage in good-faith compliance with the committee’s requests.” Jordan, Biggs and Perry previously defied subpoenas from the House Jan. 6 Committee to provide testimony.

He also criticized Comer directly for not allowing Hunter Biden to testify in a public forum after extending such invitations for him to do so in various news interviews. Raskin read quotes from the interviews Comer did throughout the fall on the subject.

“The chairman refused to take yes for an answer from Hunter Biden,” Raskin said in his opening statement.

The Biden impeachment inquiry, launched unilaterally by ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy and then formalized months later by the House in a party-line vote, has yet to yield any concrete evidence to support GOP claims that Biden participated in and profited from his son and family’s foreign business dealings.

The House Oversight Committee report recommending a contempt charge stated Hunter Biden’s testimony is “necessary” to determine whether there are “sufficient grounds” for impeachment.

The committee has also subpoenaed President Biden’s brother, James Biden, and former Hunter Biden business associate Rob Walker. It also requested transcribed interviews with other members of the Biden family and Tony Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter Biden.

ABC News’ Selina Wang and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.