Politics

(PHOENIX) — Ground-breaking events. Presentations of preposterously oversized checks. Ribbon-cutting ceremonies — especially ribbon cuttings.

Increasing the in-your-face representations of things like a new battery manufacturing plant opening or the beginning of bridge construction — the fruits of the Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure deal or the CHIPS and Science Act, all of which were championed by the White House — are how a group of generally popular Democratic governors think unpopular President Joe Biden can help improve his standing with the public ahead of a cutthroat election year.

After all, these governors said, that strategy has helped some of them win their own tough reelection fights.

“People love the announcement and love the groundbreaking, but the ribbon cutting is reality. Sometimes people talk down about when we present big checks. Well, that’s when the funding comes,” Gov. Andy Beshear told reporters at the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) winter meeting on Saturday, fresh off his 5% victory in ruby red Kentucky last month.

Biden, who continues to face strikingly poor poll numbers, has shown up at multiple such ceremonies, including in Kentucky. He visited in January alongside high-profile Republicans to address new funding that allowed improvements on the Brent Spence Bridge.

The governors think that’s where he should stay.

“I would be doing shovels or ribbons — morning, noon and night,” said New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, the outgoing DGA chairman.

Some of the Democratic Party’s most prominent governors — including those, like Beshear, who have shrugged off Biden’s poor rating with the public to win notable elections — gathered in the Arizona desert over the weekend; there, they reckoned with the struggle of their party’s leader despite Democrats state-level success in recent years.

It’s not just Beshear: With a handful of exceptions like in Georgia and Mississippi, Democratic gubernatorial candidates have been elected in various marquee races and battlegrounds across the country, sometimes by double-digit margins.

“This is the best, most talented group of Democrats in my lifetime,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Friday.

“If I’m Biden, I want [Minnesota Gov. Tim] Walz on every damn show — Gretchen [Whitmer, of Michigan] — I mean, all these people,” Newsom said.

Walz, the incoming DGA chairman, agreed: “I think in some states, these governors will definitely help the president, pull the president up.”

The DGA raised around $30 million in 2015 and $43 million in 2019. Now, the organization is slated to raise $70 million by the end of 2023, according to Murphy. But Biden’s approval remains around 37%, according to 538’s analysis of national poll data — which could predict major challenges for him in his reelection fight next year.

Walz, like the other governors at the gathering, pinned Biden’s unpopularity on a lack of public awareness or acknowledgment for an economy that’s generally been strong and staying that way — perhaps due to the lag between some of his landmark legislation and its implementation on the ground.

At the same time, however, Americans have repeatedly voiced sharp disapproval of the high rate of inflation, which has fueled a cost-of-living crunch that has taken months and months and months to slowly curb.

“There’s a general malaise, and I think oftentimes the natural tendency is to blame the guy at the top,” North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, the term-limited Democrat in a state that voted for former President Donald Trump twice, told ABC News.

“I believe as this next year comes about, and we continue to educate the public about the generational changes that President Biden has made, more people will begin feeling it,” Cooper argued.

In a general election that appears — at this early point — to be headed for a rematch between Biden and former President Donald Trump, a number of the Democratic governors offered their own takes on how Biden could notch victories in their states.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, the DGA vice chairwoman, warned the president to avoid talking about Trump and to remain authentic. Kelly suggested that includes avoiding topics he may not be as comfortable discussing publicly — namely abortion access, despite some swing state voters saying the issue has been a key one for them at the ballot box.

“I’m Irish Catholic, just like President Biden. I don’t talk about abortion … And I’m pro-choice, absolutely. And I know it was an issue last August. It was a topic of conversation. But I didn’t talk about it,” said Kelly, who was reelected governor by about two points in 2022.

Last August, a bid to remove abortion protections from Kansas’ state constitution was defeated by about 17 points.

Others disagreed with avoiding the topic of reproductive rights. Biden, for his part, has been vocal about supporting abortion access since the nationwide protections of Roe v. Wade were reversed in 2022.

“I think it’s widely known that [abortion] is probably an uncomfortable reality for him,” Murphy said of the president. “But I think we need to forget the political fallout.”

Cooper similarly said he thinks Biden should “be talking about protecting women’s reproductive freedom” in North Carolina — a state that Biden lost by just over a point in 2020 and one that could be his most competitive in 2024.

Other governors contended with the public’s pervasive concern about Biden’s age.

In a survey conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post in September, three-quarters of Americans said the 81-year-old president was too old to run for another term. Only half of Americans thought the same of 77-year-old Trump.

“I’d joke about it. Talk about the wisdom of [93-year-old investor] Warren Buffett and countless other examples who are 15 years older than he is. I would own it,” Murphy said.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — An even smaller field of Republican presidential candidates will face off in the fourth primary debate on Wednesday in Alabama.

Viewers will see fewer hopefuls on stage after South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott suspended his campaign last month. The party’s higher thresholds to qualify may also prevent some candidates from making the cut.

Former President Donald Trump, the front-runner, according to polls, is once again not expected to participate. He’ll be fundraising instead.

Here’s what to know about the fourth Republican presidential primary debate.

How to watch the debate

The debate — which will be held at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa — will air on NewsNation, a relative newcomer in the 24-hour cable news landscape, at 8 p.m. EST on Wednesday. It will also be broadcast in the Eastern and Central time zones on the company’s broadcast television network, The CW.

The faceoff will be livestreamed on NewsNation’s website as well as on Rumble.

The moderators will be Elizabeth Vargas, the anchor of NewsNation’s “Elizabeth Vargas Reports”; Megyn Kelly, the former Fox News and NBC News anchor who now hosts “The Megyn Kelly Show” on Sirius XM; and Eliana Johnson, editor-in-chief of The Washington Free Beacon.

ABC News will live blog the action on the debate stage and provide key takeaways while 538 will share analysis.

Who will be participating in the presidential debate?

It appears that at least three candidates will make the fourth debate, which, as with previous debates, has an increasingly heightened threshold to make the stage. The deadline to qualify is Monday night.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy all appear to have met the polling and donor requirements set by the Republican National Committee.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie qualified for the third debate, but his participation in the fourth debate is not yet certain. He seems to still be below the RNC polling criteria to participate.

The RNC has not yet confirmed the qualified candidates.

Scott, who also participated in the third debate, suspended his campaign in mid-November.

How do candidates qualify for the fourth debate stage?

The RNC upped its qualification criteria for candidates to participate in the fourth debate.

This time, the national party said participants need to be polling at 6% or higher in two national polls or in one national poll and at least 6% in one early poll from two separate “carve out” states, which include Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

The polling requirement is an increase from the 4% needed for the third GOP debate.

Additionally, to make the stage, the White House hopefuls must now have 80,000 unique donors that include at least 200 people in 20 or more states or territories

All candidates must also sign a pledge to support the party’s eventual 2024 nominee if they want to participate.

The candidates must meet the requirements no later than 48 hours before the debate.

Will Donald Trump participate in the debate?

Trump did not attend the first three debates, indicating he saw no point given his large polling lead — and it appears he won’t participate in the fourth one either.

“President Trump’s statement was that he would not attend the debates,” adviser Chris LaCivita said in the days following the second debate. “Plural … And that’s his position until it’s not.”

Trump is scheduled to be at a campaign fundraiser in Florida on the day of the debate.

Appearing on Fox News on Wednesday, Haley urged Trump to stop “hiding” and join in on the debates.

“He needs to get on the debate stage. He needs to confront us,” she said. “He needs to let us, you know, talk about the differences and go forward.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses are six weeks away as of Monday, with former President Donald Trump maintaining a hefty lead in Republican primary polls while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley jockey for more distant second place as they argue they are better alternatives given Trump’s extensive controversies and legal trouble.

The state’s nominating contest on Jan. 15 is a prominent opportunity for candidates to inject a surge of momentum into their campaigns, if they pull off a strong result — or risk seeing interest around their candidacies fade if Iowa voters reject them.

The last three Iowa GOP caucus winners — then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, then-Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — ultimately did not win their party’s presidential nominations in 2008, 2012 or 2016, though each win brought renewed public attention to their chances.

Nonetheless, the caucus results are the first definitive indication of where voters actually stand, after months and months of polling.

Here’s where things stand.

Trump maintains a huge lead

According to 538’s polling average, Trump remains the clear favorite. He hasn’t dropped below 40% support in the polls since late August. No other candidate has topped 20% in that same period.

Still, DeSantis and Haley trying to chip away at his advantage.

Trump faces some political headwinds in the state, including knocking popular Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds for her endorsement of DeSantis.

Trump has not traveled as extensively in Iowa as DeSantis has, but his lead underscores the continued popularity he has among the GOP base.

DeSantis still projecting confidence

DeSantis has put a premium on Iowa’s caucuses, insisting he’ll pull out a win next month as part of what he calls his plan to show another Republican can succeed even if they aren’t named Trump.

“We’re going to win Iowa,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “It’s going to help propel us to the nomination. But I think we’ll have a lot of work that we’ll have to do beyond that. I don’t think you take anything for granted.”

DeSantis has blitzed the state, visiting all 99 counties to reach the “full Grassley” — a feat named after the state’s senior Sen. Chuck Grassley. One of DeSantis’ affiliated super PACs, Never Back Down, has also established an expansive ground presence throughout the state.

However, his polling hasn’t budged in recent months, according to 538, and remains notably lower than in the weeks after he first entered the race in May.

Haley gaining some ground with just weeks to go

As the weeks tick by for Haley to make her pitch to voters, her support has been ticking up in Iowa and across the country, 538’s polling average shows.

Haley sat at a lowly 3.8% in 538’s Iowa polling average on Aug. 23 and now sits at 15%, a little less than 3 points behind DeSantis.

The South Carolinians’ swell of support comes after likely primary voters gave her high marks in three straight strong debate performances, on top of a heavier travel schedule that ramped up once her polling began to improve.

Haley also recently won the support of the Koch-affiliated Americans for Prosperity Action, which is expected to add more on-the-ground infrastructure to help her.

Rest of the field either falling flat or not even bothering

Outside of Trump, DeSantis and Haley, Republican candidates are largely not breaking through..

Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy captured attention with growing momentum in the polls in August, but that has since stalled and he is stuck at approximately 5% in 538’s polling average, even after expanding his campaign infrastructure in the state.

And former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is sitting at about 4%, though he’s largely forgoing the caucuses to focus on New Hampshire, where he believes the more independent primary electorate could be a better fit for his anti-Trump message.

No action on the Democratic side

Democrats, who demoted Iowa in their primary calendar for other states that they feel are more representative of their base, are largely staying away from the state.

Iowa’s Democratic caucuses in 2020 were infamously marred by technical glitches and saw now-President Joe Biden finish fifth, sparking questions over how representative electorate was of Democrats elsewhere.

The 2024 Democratic Iowa caucuses will also be held on Jan. 15 but the process that really matters, where voters select their presidential preference, will be done via mail ending on March 5.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The White House on Monday issued a dire warning about the urgent need to approve aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia, saying failure to act quickly will “kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield.”

In a letter to congressional leaders, Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young said flat out the U.S. is “out of money — and nearly out of time” to send assistance to Ukraine.

“I want to be clear: without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from U.S. military stocks,” Young wrote. “There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money — and nearly out of time.”

President Joe Biden has requested a $106 billion package for Ukraine and Israel in their respective wars as well as $14 billion for border security. Yet his proposal has stalled in Congress.

While White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby last week said “the runway is getting shorter” for U.S. aid for Ukraine, the new White House language dramatically ramps up the pressure to get Ukraine funding approved as the end of the year approaches.

“We are out of money to support Ukraine in this fight. This isn’t a next year problem. The time to help a democratic Ukraine fight against Russian aggression is right now. It is time for Congress to act,” Young wrote.

A halt in assistance will cause significant issues for Ukraine — and potentially benefit Russia, Young said.

“Cutting off the flow of U.S. weapons and equipment will kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories,” she wrote.

Young also stressed that U.S. funding for Ukraine is going beyond the battlefield. She writes that $27.2 billion has been used for economic assistance and civilian security assistance.

“If Ukraine’s economy collapses, they will not be able to keep fighting, full stop. Putin understands this well, which is why Russia has made destroying Ukraine’s economy central to its strategy — which you can see in its attacks against Ukraine’s grain exports and energy infrastructure.”

Young also makes the case that approving this funding for Ukraine will have an economic impact in the U.S., directing over “$50 billion in our nation’s [Defense Industrial Base] which builds on the funding that has already been invested in manufacturing lines across 35 states.”

What’s the holdup in Congress?

It’s been almost a year since Congress passed additional aid to Ukraine, and lawmakers have been working to try to get a deal that will deliver funds before the year’s end. But negotiations have been plagued by a number of disagreements between Democrats and Republicans about how to best move forward on an aid package, and about what ought to be included in it.

Since returning after Thanksgiving, senators have been trying to find a way to advance a package that would deliver aid Ukraine while also funding a number of additional national security priorities, including Taiwan and Israel, as well as funds to the southern border.

Biden’s proposed aid package, which would fund all of these priorities, could hit the Senate floor as soon as this week. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not ruled out trying to advance the package in the coming days.

But Senate Republicans have vowed that if Schumer tries to move forward with the administration’s ask, they’ll deny it the 60 votes it needs to move forward unless they secure some major policy wins about security at the southern border.

Democrats have been trying for several weeks to find a way to appease Republican demands for border policy wins that could also pass muster in the Democratic-controlled Senate, but negotiations continue to be hung up over disagreements on how to effectively modify asylum and parole provisions.

Democrats admonished their GOP colleagues in recent days for conditioning aid to Ukraine on securing border policy changes.

Schumer pointed fingers on Monday afternoon as senators work against the clock to fund Ukraine.

“The hold up on the security supplemental has not been over Ukraine or Israel or the IndoPacific but over the Republican decision to inject hard-right immigration measure over the debate,” Schumer said.

In his remarks Monday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell insisted that his negotiators, Sens. James Lankford, Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham, remain at the table ready to engage, and he lambasted Democrats for what he described as “handwringing” over the border rather than real efforts to meet GOP demands.

“From the White House to the Capitol, Washington Democrats are wasting time with bizarre public scoldings instead of engaging actively in the border security discussions required to complete a viable national security supplemental,” McConnell said.

McConnell and House Speaker Mike Johnson are in lockstep in their assertion that without border policy wins, any effort to secure Ukraine aid will falter. And in response to Young’s letter to lawmakers Monday, Johnson doubled down.

“The Administration is continually ignoring the catastrophe at our own border,” Johnson wrote on X. “House Republicans have resolved that any national security supplemental package must begin with our own border. We believe both issues can be agreed upon if Senate Democrats and the White House will negotiate reasonably.”

But while McConnell and Johnson are prepared to toe the line on the border, there’s more daylight between the two over how exactly to move such a massive package.

McConnell is a staunch advocate for Ukraine aid and has repeatedly insisted that the best way to move funds for the country is in a multi-pronged package, like the one the Senate is working on, that ties Ukraine aid in with Israel, Taiwan and border funding.

Johnson, however, opposes that approach. He told senators last week he does not believe he has the votes to pass such a massive package, and instead he continues to advocate for breaking the bills into separate pieces for individual consideration.

The Senate has several priorities stacking up as the end of the year approaches. In a chamber where moving bills can sometimes be a cumbersome task, there may not be time to process multiple aid packages.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A historic multibillion-do7llar settlement with OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma hung in the balance at the Supreme Court on Monday as victims of the nation’s opioid epidemic urged the justices to approve the deal over opposition from the Biden administration, which warned it would let the company’s owners — the Sackler family — evade greater financial responsibility.

During oral argument in the case, Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, most of the justices appeared inclined to uphold the arrangement, which was forged after years of painstaking negotiations as part of the drugmaker’s bankruptcy proceedings and is endorsed by a large majority of victims.

“I’m wondering why one nutcase holdout should hold up something like this,” said Justice Elena Kagan, referring to several individual claimants who said they believe the deal is too lenient.

Under the deal, the Sacklers would provide roughly $6 billion to redress harm from opioid addiction and related deaths and give up ownership of the company — a sum that would be paid out to 138,000 individual victims, state governments and Native American tribes over a number of years.

In exchange, the family — which has not declared bankruptcy itself — would receive immunity from all future opioid-related lawsuits and retain billions in past profits earned from sales of the drug.

More than 80,000 Americans have suffered opioid-related deaths since OxyContin and similar painkillers hit the market in 1996. Purdue’s aggressive marketing and disregard for addiction concerns played a major role in the rise of the epidemic, according to public health experts and several legal findings.

“Let me be crystal clear,” said attorney Pratik Shah, who was defending the deal on behalf of the supportive victims. “Without the release [of liability for the Sacklers], the plan will unravel, Chapter 7 liquidation will follow, and there will be no viable path to any victim recovery.”

“Forget a better deal,” Shah said. “There is no other deal.”

A federal district court blocked the plan, saying federal law did not allow such a sweeping legal shield for the Sacklers without unanimous consent of all the claimants. A federal appeals court later reversed that ruling, saying the plan could go forward because of leeway in the law.

The deal has remained on hold as the Supreme Court reviews the case.

Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon said there could be a better deal in the making for victims, arguing that immunity for the Sacklers “conflicts with the basic nuts and bolts” of bankruptcy law.

“It permits the Sacklers to decide how much they’re going to contribute. It grants the Sacklers the functional equivalent of a discharge, what they might get if they themselves were in bankruptcy,” Gannon said. “It raises significant constitutional questions that should be avoided in the absence of a clear command from Congress.”

Several justices seemed to share the government’s view.

“We don’t normally say that a nonconsenting party can have its claim for property eliminated in this fashion without consent or any process of court other than the procedure here,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch. “This would defy what we do in class-action contexts. It would raise serious due process concerns and seventh amendment concerns.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested she had concerns the Sacklers could be seen as benefiting from the deal, while Chief Justice John Roberts raised the possibility that Congress never contemplated such a sweeping third-party immunity arrangement when it wrote the bankruptcy code.

It seems to be a “fairly clear case for the application of what is called our major questions doctrine,” Roberts said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, frequently a deciding vote in close cases, repeatedly indicated that precedent should weigh heavily in favor of approving the deal.

“Bankruptcy courts for 30 years have been approving plans like this, and I guess I’m trying to figure out, with all that practice under the judiciary’s belt, why we would say it’s categorically inappropriate,” he said.

“The opioid victims and their families overwhelmingly approve this plan because they think it will ensure prompt payment,” he said.

If approved, the deal is expected to issue payments of between $3,500 and $48,000 to individual victims and their survivors. This is in addition to funding abatement programs through state health offices.

If the deal is blocked, legal experts say it could upend the nation’s bankruptcy system and the process for resolving cases of mass injury, and potential force the reopening of deals like the one that resolved thousands of claims against the Boy Scouts of America for sexual abuse.

A decision in the case is expected to be handed down by the end of June 2024.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan on Monday said the U.S. is consulting with allies on “appropriate action” in response to the latest Houthi drone and missile attacks in the Red Sea.

“We have made clear that the entire world needs to step up together, not the U.S. alone, but all of us working together to deal with this emerging challenge that the Houthis present, backed by Iran. We’re going to take appropriate action in consultation with others and we will do so at a time and place of our choosing.”

Three commercial ships came under attack in the international waters of the Red Sea on Sunday, U.S. military officials said, as Houthi militants claimed responsibility for the latest incursion in the Middle East, where tensions have been high since the Israel-Hamas war began.

The USS Carney, a Navy destroyer that has been patrolling in the area, intercepted and shot down three drones while assisting the vessels on Sunday, CENTCOM said.

“The Carney took action as a drone was headed in its direction, but again we can’t say the Carney, at this time, was the intended target,” Sabrina Singh, the Pentagon’s deputy press secretary, said Monday although she added that the Pentagon was not ruling out the possibility.

At the White House, ABC Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce pressed Sullivan on U.S. retaliatory efforts not having been effective so far given how the Houthis continue to fire off missiles and drones at commercial shipping in the Red Sea, forcing U.S. ships in the area to respond.

He defended “steps” the administration has taken but acknowledged there continues to be what he called “very alarming behavior.”

“We have taken a number of steps, including the movement of carriers, air wings and others to keep this war that is being waged now between Israel and Hamas in Gaza from spilling out into a broader conflict, a full-on regional conflict,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that we are not seeing very alarming behavior and there are two forms of it in particular, that we’re focused on: one is attacks by Iranian-enabled and aligned Shia militia groups in Iraq and Syria, attacking our forces. We are taking steps to protect our people and to strike back against them.”

He continued to place blame for the Houthi attacks squarely on Iran, saying that country is supplying the Houthis with the weapons being used.

“We are talking about the Houthis here, they are the ones with their finger on the trigger but that gun, the weapons here are being supplied by Iran, and Iran, we believe, is the ultimate party responsible for this.”

Sullivan also said the commercial ships that were targeted had ties to 14 different countries and showed the extent of a “source of global concern and a threat to international peace and stability.” He added that the U.S. doesn’t think all three ships had ties to Israel.

“It goes to show you the level of recklessness that the Houthis are operating on. Any ship they shoot at, whether its Israeli-owned or has some connection in the past to Israel, that doesn’t make it any more of a justifiable target under international law than if the ship didn’t have ties to Israel, but some of the ships we believe may not have.”

ABC News’ Matthew Seyler contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden will attend the Kennedy Center Honors gala on Sunday night as a new group of performers and artists are receiving the illustrious annual distinction.

The 2023 honorees include comedian and actor Billy Crystal, opera singer Renée Fleming, the Bee Gees’ Barry Gibb, rapper and actress Queen Latifah and singer Dionne Warwick.

“This year’s slate represents an extraordinary mix of individuals who have redefined their art forms and demonstrated remarkable tenacity and authenticity in becoming an original,” the Kennedy Center president, Deborah Rutter, said in a statement.

Crystal, in his own statement, said he was “overwhelmed” to be chosen — a sentiment shared by Latifah, who said her selection mattered to more than just her.

“To now be recognized amongst so many multi-hyphenates feels unbelievable, not for just me and my team, but for our community,” she said.

The president and first lady hosted a reception for Crystal, Fleming, Gibb, Latifah and Warwick earlier on Sunday at the White House. Vice President Kamala Harris and second gentleman Doug Emhoff attended, and Emhoff will also attend the evening gala with the Bidens.

“As simple as it is profound, performing arts are more than just sound and scene — they reflect who we are as Americans and as human beings,” Joe Biden said at the reception. “That’s especially true for more than 200 Kennedy Center honorees over the past 46 years, who have helped shape how we see ourselves, how we see each other and how we see our world.”

One by one, the president gave brief highlights about Crystal, Fleming, Gibb, Latifah and Warwick. He again noted the recent death of former first lady Rosalynn Carter, calling her “a champion of the performing arts.”

The gala ceremony, on Sunday night in Washington, will be hosted by Gloria Estefan, who was an honoree in 2017.

Last year’s class included George Clooney, Amy Grant, Gladys Knight, Tania León and U2.

The Kennedy Center Honors gala is customarily attended by the president, though Donald and Melania Trump skipped it while in the White House. The event was also disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

The show that night will be taped and air on CBS later in December.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Major changes to America’s immigration system will be part of a military aid package for Israel and Ukraine that will be finalized in Congress by year’s end, Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford predicted on Sunday.

“We’ve got to actually bring a proposal forward that will actually make that difference, that could actually reform how we handle asylum … from top to bottom, that we can actually handle how we’re actually handling the process of all those individuals,” Lankford, who is leading GOP senators in negotiations on the border, told ABC “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos.

The Biden administration has proposed tens of billions of dollars for Israel and Ukraine in their respective wars as well as $14 billion for border security. But amid continued high immigration numbers at the southern border, GOP lawmakers have said those funds must be tied to policy changes like with the asylum system.

When pressed by Stephanopoulos if he would support overseas aid without substantial border legislation also included, Lankford replied, “No. We’re going to do this all together.”

“There’s a reason that this hasn’t been done in decades, because it’s hard. It’s very technical work, and there’s a lot of challenges that are in it. And any time you deal with border security, there are a lot of complicating features in this. … But the most important thing is to be able to get this right,” Lankford said.

“People want a legal, orderly process, not the chaos that we currently have on our southern border,” he argued, adding, “That shouldn’t be too tall of an order to be able to fulfill.”

Lankford cited some of the record-breaking statistics for migrants encountered at the southern border.

“This continues to spiral out of control,” he said.

White House spokesman John Kirby, also appearing on “This Week,” said that Congress had “basically ignored” President Joe Biden’s previous immigration reform plan.

He reitarerated that the administration wants its roughly $100 billion funding request addressed immediately.

And, Kirby said, “If they’re serious about immigration reform, they ought to take that proposal up by the president.”

Lankford was separately pressed multiple times by Stephanopoulos on whether he will support former President Donald Trump in the 2024 election, if Trump is the Republican nominee — given Trump’s numerous legal issues and controversies, including baseless attacks on the last presidential race and suggesting parts of the Constitution should be ended.

“That’s not going to be me making that decision, that’s going to be the American people that actually make that decision,” Lankford initially said.

Asked again by Stephanopoulos, he said, “I’ve stayed out of this. Again, there’s gonna be Republican voters and the American people that are going to make that decision.”

When Stephanopoulos followed up for an answer, Lankford indicated that he would ultimately back Trump over Democratic President Joe Biden.

“If he ends up being the nominee, and I’ve got a choice between Donald Trump and Biden, I’ve got a choice between two different sets of policies …. That is not a hard choice,” he said.

Stephanopoulos asked if Lankford would support Trump if Trump were convicted of one of the 91 felony counts that he is currently facing. (Trump denies wrongdoing.)

“We have a long way to go on that, George … I understand that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in this process,” Lankford said.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In the wake of blockbuster new reporting that Israel was aware Hamas was planning a major terror attack more than a year in advance, American officials are continuing to assess that information while Israel plans to conduct its own investigation after fighting ends with Hamas, officials said Sunday.

“All of these questions, we’re going to have to get to the bottom of it after the war,” Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer told ABC “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos.

Dermer maintained that he had been unaware of the intelligence about Hamas’ plans until it was published in The New York Times late last week.

The Times cited a 40-page document, which Israel reportedly obtained, predicting many of the steps taken by Hamas in the Oct. 7 terror attack that sparked the current war.

White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, in a separate “This Week” appearance on Sunday, was pressed by Stephanopoulos on whether the U.S. had any warning of the attack or should have.

“Our intelligence community is taking a look into that,” Kirby said. But he added, “They have no indications that we, the United States intelligence community, had any knowledge of that [Hamas planning] document beforehand or any visibility into it.”

Kirby also noted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said there were intelligence failures.

“They’ll do the forensics. They’ll do that and they’ll do it thoroughly. But right now, certainly on intelligence, the focus has got to be on making sure that Israel has what it needs to go after Hamas leadership,” he said.

Israel has resumed its retaliatory military operations in Gaza after the collapse of a temporary cease-fire as part of a broader hostage-prisoner exchange with Hamas.

Kirby told Stephanopoulos that the U.S. was still pushing for another pause in the conflict in order to free more of the hostages.

“We’re working at this literally by the hour,” he said.

He blamed Hamas for the breakdown because they “refused to come up with additional lists of women and children, which we know they are holding.”

Kirby said about 140 people are believed to be still held captive by Hamas, including eight Americans, though he said officials have limited information on their location and condition.

While outside humanitarian groups, including the U.N., have warned of catastrophe for civilians in Gaza if sufficient aid isn’t allowed into the territory, Kirby said on “This Week” that “food, water, medicine and even fuel continues to get into Gaza” — though in smaller amounts than during the cease-fire.

Dermer, in his interview, expressed gratitude for the Biden administration’s work on a hostage deal but said Israel’s larger goal — “to dismantle Hamas’ military capabilities, to end its political rule in Gaza” — had not changed.

Stephanopoulos pressed Dermer on the civilian death toll and pointed to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s recent comments that such casualties could only fuel the very extremism that sparked October’s terror attack.

At least 15,000 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.

American officials like Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have also recently called out the high death toll in Gaza.

“We’re doing everything we can to keep civilians out of harm’s way,” Dermer told Stephanopoulos. He highlighted steps like providing maps of locations where people in Gaza can go for safety and blasting out warnings to those in southern Gaza, many of whom fled earlier fighting.

“I want the American people to understand this: This war is not going on thousands of miles away. It’s going on literally hundreds of yards away, and it’s going on at a time when rockets are flying into our country and we have people running to bomb shelters,” Dermer said.

He argued that Israel’s attacks on Hamas in Gaza could force the group into another cease-fire.

“What we know is that the thing that brings Hamas to the table and its willingness to make a deal is military pressure,” he said.

Kirby, in his interview, said the U.S. has urged the Israeli government to account for civilians as they continue their military operations.

“We believe that they have been receptive to our messages here, in terms of trying to minimalize civilian casualties,” he said.

“They are making an effort,” he said.

While Dermer said he could not give a timeline for when the war ends — in weeks or months — he acknowledged “we still have some ways to go.”

More broadly, Kirby said that President Joe Biden still believes in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But Kirby said the Palestinian Authority, which governs part of the West Bank territory, needed to be “revitalized” and reformed and Hamas could not have a stake in the process.

Dermer said Israel’s government also supports some form of Palestinian autonomy: “We want the Palestinians to have all the powers to govern themselves but none of the powers that they can use to threaten Israel.”

“That’s something when we get back to negotiations, we’ll have to see how we do that,” he said.

“But the first thing we have to do is destroy Hamas, which is not interested in any peace,” he said.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(ATLANTA) — Former President Donald Trump’s attorney told a Fulton County court Friday that the Georgia election interference indictment against Trump “needs to be dismissed” on the grounds that it prosecutes conduct protected by the First Amendment.

The argument came in the first of two hearings scheduled Friday in which attorneys for the former president and several of his co-defendants are seeking the dismissal of the case or a delay in the case’s upcoming deadlines.

“You take the facts as alleged in the indictment … and when you do that … you find that it violates free speech, freedom of petitioning, all the expressions that the First Amendment is designed to protect,” Trump’s attorney Steve Sadow told the court.

The brief remarks from Sadow marked the first time Trump’s team has presented arguments in the case.

“Every single count of the complaint, every single act … relates to that political speech regarding probably the most important election in 2020 — the presidential election,” said Chris Anulewicz, an attorney for Trump co-defendant Robert Cheeley.

Anulewicz made the bulk of the First Amendment arguments before the court, telling the judge that political speech is “given the highest level of protection of any speech.”

A prosecutor for the Fulton County district attorney’s office pushed back on the First Amendment argument, saying the case that goes far beyond speech.

“Some of these are crimes involving expression; some of them are not,” Deputy District Attorney Will Wooten said. “Conspiracy is not a crime involving expression. It’s a crime involving a corrupt agreement.

“The list goes on and on,” Wooten said.

Sadow also pushed back on the Aug. 5 trial date proposed by the Fulton County district attorney, citing the timing of the 2024 presidential election.

“Can you imagine the notion of the Republican nominee for president not being able to campaign for the presidency because he is in some form or fashion in a courtroom defending himself?” Sadow asked the court. “That would be the most effective election interference in the history of the United States. And I don’t think anybody wants to be in that position.”

“Let’s be clear — this is not election interference,” responded Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade. “This is moving forward with the business of Fulton County.”

Judge Scott McAfee brought up the question of what what would happen if Trump won the election, asking, “Could he even be tried in 2025?”

“The answer to that is, I believe, that under the supremacy clause and his duties as president, this trial would not take place at all until after he left his term of office,” Sadow responded.

At one point, an attorney for Trump co-defendant John Eastman jumped in to offer his client’s opinion that the trial date should be set earlier than August.

“There are a number of defendants, as noted, who are not running for president of the United States,” he said.

Trump and 18 others pleaded not guilty in August to all charges in the Fulton County district attorney’s sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia. Defendants Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, Jena Ellis and Scott Hall subsequently took plea deals in exchange for agreeing to testify against other defendants.

Judge McAfee indicated that he would likely break up case’s 14 remaining defendants into multiple trials — but that it was “still a little too far out” to set the maximum number of defendants per trial.

“Even 12 defendants would be pushing it,” said McAfee. “That’s where I’m at now.”

Lawyers for Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark were expected to present arguments during the day’s second hearing to try to delay several rapidly approaching deadlines in the case.

Meadows is seeking a two-month extension to the Dec. 4 deadline for discovery and the Jan. 8 deadline for pretrial motions, citing his ongoing effort to remove his case to federal court.

“The request for a relatively brief extension is made in an effort to prevent Mr. Meadows from having to litigate the same case simultaneously in two separate courts while the Eleventh Circuit decides on an expedited schedule, the removal action,” his filing states.

Clark is also seeking to delay those deadlines, citing his own federal removal effort, as well as his ongoing disciplinary case, brought by the D.C. bar, that’s underway in Washington, D.C., .

Clark’s attorney said Clark’s “very difficult and congested calendar” would overburden Clarke and compromise the adequacy of his representation.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.