(ROLLING FORK, Miss.) — President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden touched down in Mississippi on Friday, nearly a week following a severe string of tornadoes that tore through the South and left at least 26 dead.
The first couple will tour Rolling Fork, Mississippi, a delta-region city pummeled by a tornado which was later assigned the rare and powerful classification rating of EF-4. Across the state, one long-track twister left a trail of destruction for about 59 miles, according to officials. The president approved disaster relief for the state on Sunday.
Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba — one of Mississippi’s few elected Democrats — greeted the president and first lady after they landed in the city on Friday morning. They will traverse north to Yazoo City, where they’ll be briefed by federal, local and state officials on ongoing response and recovery efforts.
The Bidens will then travel east to Rolling Fork, surveying the disaster path and meeting with residents impacted by the storms.
The president will deliver remarks at 1:25 p.m. CDT, reaffirming his “commitment to supporting the people of Mississippi as long as it takes,” according to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.
The Bidens will be joined by Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves and first lady Elee Reeves, as well as Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Deanne Criswell, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge and Rolling Fork Mayor Eldridge Walker will also be in attendance.
In Rolling Fork, President Biden will announce the federal government will cover the full cost of the state’s emergency measures for the next 30 days. This includes debris removal, running shelters and paying for first responders to work overtime, among other costs. Biden has taken similar actions in other disaster zones, such as in Florida after Hurricane Ian.
He will also announce that FEMA will open disaster recovery centers in four Mississippi counties to help victims of the tornadoes.
The president’s visit comes days after he approved Mississippi’s disaster declaration and ordered federal aid to supplement state and local recovery efforts.
Over the weekend, the president spoke with Reeves and other members of the state’s delegation and “approved an expedited, major disaster declaration for Mississippi and ordered federal funding be made available to support emergency response efforts,” according to Jean-Pierre.
“I just spoke with President Biden about the deadly tornados we faced overnight. He assured us FEMA would be there to support our response. The flood of support from governors, businesses, charities, and federal admin has been tremendous—matches the community here on the ground,” Reeves, a longtime Biden critic, said in a Tweet on Saturday.
(NEW YORK) — Following Donald Trump’s unprecedented indictment by a Manhattan, New York grand jury Thursday, the former president begins the first steps in the criminal justice process.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office said it has been in contact with Trump’s attorneys to arrange Trump’s surrender to authorities in order to begin criminal proceedings.
Trump, a Florida resident, will have to travel to New York City to adhere to the court’s deadline and be processed by authorities before heading to court for the unsealing of the indictment.
While a day has not been firmed up, sources close to the investigation told ABC News that Tuesday is the day being discussed by Trump’s legal team and the Manhattan DA’s office.
Processing typically involves being fingerprinted and being photographed for a mug shot, but experts say those may not occur in Trump’s case because the former president is not a flight risk. Similarly, Trump attorney Joe Tacopina told George Stephanopoulos Friday on ABC News’ Good Morning America that Trump would not be handcuffed.
“The president will not be put in handcuffs,” Tacopina said.
It is also unlikely that Trump will be publicly transported to the courtroom by police, according to Cheryl Bader, an associate clinical professor of law at Fordham University.
“With white-collar crime, we see that a lot of [suspects] have the privilege of being able to turn themselves in instead of being arrested and put in handcuffs,” she said.
During the court appearance, which typically takes place in a courtroom without cameras in New York state, the former president will be read his charges and ordered to make a plea. Trump and his attorneys have indicated they intend to fight the indictment in court.
Following his plea, the judge will have the right to remand Trump on bail or release him on his own recognizance before adjourning for a future date. Bader said that judges rarely order suspects in white-collar crimes to be held in jail before their trial, and she expected that the judge will release Trump after the hearing.
In some cases, especially if the suspect is a flight risk, a judge may place restrictions on the suspect such as holding onto their passport, but Bader said it is unclear if the judge will go that far.
Following the judge’s order, Trump’s attorneys will have the opportunity to review the indictment charges and make motions regarding the case, including seeking to have the charges dismissed or evidence suppressed, or requesting a change of venue.
Several pre-trial hearings and motions are expected in the case, as Trump’s attorneys have repeatedly made claims that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s investigation is a political attack, according to Bader.
“I’m sure the case is going to be very litigated and take a lot of time to wind its way through the system,” Bader said.
(NEW YORK) — In addition to former President Donald Trump’s alleged role in the $130,000 hush payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is also investigating a $150,000 payment to Playboy model Karen McDougal, who, like Daniels, claimed to have had an affair with Trump.
The former president, who was indicted Thursday in New York on charges which remain sealed, has denied having an affair with either woman and has called the entire investigation a witch hunt.
A spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney’s office declined to comment.
McDougal was paid for the rights to her story in August 2016 by American Media, publisher of the National Enquirer, which did not publish it, a practice known as catch and kill.
Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, has said he recorded Trump discussing reimbursement to American Media for the payment to McDougal, but the payment was never made.
Trump has not responded to ABC News’ request for comment but in a 2018 interview with Fox News, he claimed he wasn’t aware of any payment made to A.M.I. to facilitate the alleged hush agreement.
That the Manhattan investigation allegedly includes the McDougal payment, a detail first reported by the Wall Street Journal, raises the possibility Trump could face criminal charges over alleged attempts to keep both women from going public with their stories before the 2016 presidential election. Or, prosecutors could use the second case to suggest a pattern of conduct.
Both Daniels and McDougal alleged affairs with Trump happened years before he ran for president — McDougal in 2006 and Daniels in 2010 — but were both paid in the closing moments of the 2016 campaign.
A grand jury has been hearing evidence in the Trump matter since January and voted to indict him Thursday. The exact charges and details of the case are unclear as the indictment remains under seal.
(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump’s indictment by a New York City grand jury was historic — and quickly dismissed by him as politically motivated persecution — and now opponents in his party are weighing in.
Trump was indicted and is expected to surrender early next week, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News on Thursday.
The charge or charges against him are not yet known while the indictment remains under seal, though he has been under investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the final days of the 2016 campaign, to keep Daniels from going public with a claim of an affair that he denies.
Congressional Republicans quickly came to Trump’s defense after the news broke, with many echoing his view that Bragg’s actions are partisan.
Some of Trump’s confirmed or prospective rivals for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination also spoke out.
In an interview with CNN later Thursday, Mike Pence called it an “outrage,” arguing that the case against Trump is “tenuous” and will “only further serve to divide our country.”
“It appears to millions of Americans to be nothing more than a political prosecution,” Pence, who served as Trump’s vice president and is weighing his own 2024 bid, said on CNN. He went on to say it “offends” the ideals of fair and equal treatment under the law.
Pressed by anchor Wolf Blitzer, Pence said that “no one is above the law, including former presidents … and the American people know this.” But he maintained that this case was different.
He declined to say if Trump should be disqualified or drop out of the 2024 race if he is convicted but also said that there is “no reason for calling for people to be protesting” the indictment, despite Trump’s statements otherwise.
He also said there was “harsh language on either side” that was “unacceptable.”
Pence said that the development had “no bearing” on whether he will seek the GOP nod next year himself and likened the matter to an example of the news media’s “obsession” with Trump while, in his own travels across the country, “Not one person raised this issue” compared with the Biden administration’s “failed policies.”
His reaction was shared by other leading conservatives already in the White House race — and those who might join.
“This is more about revenge than it is justice,” former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley tweeted shortly after the indictment. Haley announced her presidential candidacy in mid-February.
Attached to her tweet was a video of a previous appearance on Fox News, in which she alleged Bragg was looking to score “political points.”
“I think the country would be better off talking about things that the American public cares about than to sit there and have to deal with some political revenge by political people in New York,” she said at the time.
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, who is seen as a potential Republican presidential candidate, argued in his own reaction that Bragg “has failed to uphold the law for violent criminals, yet weaponized the law against political enemies.”
“This is a travesty and it should not be happening in the greatest country on Earth. The presumption of innocence is central to our legal system, yet is selectively discarded by those on the far left today,” Scott said.
Trump’s former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has said he is weighing a presidential campaign, tweeted Thursday that “prosecuting serious crimes keeps Americans safe, but political prosecutions put the American legal system at risk of being viewed as a tool for abuse. DA Bragg – spend taxpayers’ money and your energy protecting law-abiding citizens. Not playing politics.”
Vivek Ramaswamy, a businessman and another Republican candidate for president, posted his reaction in a Twitter video.
“This is wrong. This is dangerous,” he said. “We are skating on thin ice as a country right now.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whom sources have told ABC News is expected to launch a presidential campaign in the coming months, tweeted that the indictment was “un-American” and “a weaponization of the legal system.”
Florida, he wrote, would “not assist in an extradition request.”
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who is also considered a possible 2024 contender, called it a “dark day for America” but said the New York City jury must have found evidence to support the unprecedented move.
“While the grand jury found credible facts to support the charges, it is important that the presumption of innocence follows Mr. Trump,” Hutchinson said a statement. “We need to wait on the facts and for our American system of justice to work like it does for thousands of Americans every day.”
A spokesperson for Bragg’s office said Thursday: “This evening we contacted Mr. Trump’s attorney to coordinate his surrender to the Manhattan D.A.’s Office for arraignment on a Supreme Court indictment, which remains under seal. Guidance will be provided when the arraignment date is selected.”
ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, Aaron Katersky and John Santucci contributed to this report.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The indictment of Donald Trump marks an unprecedented development in the country’s history — the first time a former president has ever faced criminal charges.
Historians say that not since Richard Nixon had there been the real prospect of a commander-in-chief being formally accused of a crime, though Nixon avoided that fate after being pardoned by successor Gerald Ford.
Trump’s indictment by a New York City grand jury was confirmed to ABC News by multiple sources on Thursday. While the charge or charges against him remain unclear, he had been under investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over money paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during Trump’s 2016 presidential bid to stop Daniels from going public about what she claimed was an affair with Trump.
Trump denies any wrongdoing, saying he is being politically persecuted, and maintains he never had a relationship with Daniels.
He has defended the $130,000 he paid Daniels, with his attorneys describing it as extortion.
The indictment — resulting from just one of multiple investigations into Trump — comes in the early stages of the 2024 presidential race as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for a third time.
Beyond the uncertainty that being indicted inserts into Trump’s comeback campaign, the legal development thrusts him, the judicial system and perhaps the country itself into uncharted waters.
“There’s nothing even remotely like it in American history. The closest that we come is Richard Nixon back in 1974, after he had left the White House upon resignation in the face of almost certain impeachment by the House of Representatives,” said ABC News presidential historian Mark Updegrove.
The only other point of comparison is when then-Vice President Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804 and, after leaving office, was arrested, tried and found innocent around charges of staging an insurrection, Updegrove said. (Decades alter, in a separate matter, then-President Ulysses S. Grant was arrested in 1872 related to speeding on his carriage.)
“With Trump, it’s a very different circumstance,” Updegrove said.
Unlike Nixon, who was ultimately pushed out of office under bipartisan pressure, Trump has gotten backing from his fellow conservatives.
And unlike Nixon, Trump has no hope of a presidential pardon from his successor, Democrat Joe Biden.
President Ford pardoned Nixon in September 1974 — igniting instant controversy — and said in a speech to the public that his decision was in the interest of ending the prolonged fallout from Watergate and its cover-up, which had roiled the country and led to a slew of political resignations or officials being charged.
In his pardon speech, Ford called Nixon a “longtime friend” who had “suffered enough, and will continue to suffer” amid “serious allegations and accusations [that] hang like a sword.”
Attorney Nick Akerman, who helped investigate Nixon while working for Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski, told ABC News he believed Nixon “could have been indicted” but Jaworski decided the appropriate channel for bringing charges against a sitting president was through Congress.
“He was even named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the cover-up trial,” Akerman said.
By the time Nixon resigned from office, and the idea of an indictment could be revisited, the pardon from Ford came just weeks later, Akerman said.
Updegrove said the political mood around Nixon is much different than now, around Trump.
“It was Republicans, as well as Democrats, who saw the misdeeds of Watergate as being an indication that Richard Nixon was not fit for office,” he said. “You have so much more division in Washington and in the country today than you did back then. So, I’m not sure that these charges will really matter what the Republican base. We’ll see.”
Even before the indictment came down against Trump, leading members of the GOP cast him as the victim of a partisan vendetta by Bragg, a Democrat, with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy telling GOP-led House committees to investigate if federal funds were used as part of Bragg’s investigation.
“I think most people in Trump’s base are of the mind that New York is a liberal bastion, and it’s those people first who would be out to get Donald Trump. I think they subscribe to the notion that there is a ‘deep state’ [of anti-Trump forces in the government], there is a conscious effort to get Donald Trump, and it plays into this brilliant us-versus-them, they’re-all-out-to-get-me narrative that Trump has been so successful in propagating,” Updegrove said.
The indictment may ultimately play a minor role in Trump’s legacy by virtue of the fact that opinions are already settled on Trump’s scandal-plagued personal life and the other investigations into his conduct involve government activity, Updegrove said.
Those probes include his handling of classified documents while out of office as well as his push to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
“Those are more serious as they relate to matters of the state,” Updegrove said. “But this is a personal thing, which I think makes it a fundamentally different thing. We know that Donald Trump has character blemishes on his personal side. I think people were willing, particularly in his base, were willing to overlook them because he was willing to uphold the policies that they advocated. That’s a different matter altogether.”
“I think it’s probably a big part of a chapter on a book about Donald Trump. I don’t see this as the major thing,” Updegrove said.
Still, that doesn’t take away from the historic nature of the indictment, he said, adding to a notorious resume for Trump that already includes being the first president to be impeached twice — once over allegations he withheld aid to Ukraine to force the launch of a probe into Biden and once over Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. He was acquitted by the Senate in both cases.
Updegrove said Trump’s indictment and the related proceedings — being processed by the criminal justice system, being summoned to court — have immense symbolic power because he was president.
Ford acknowledged as much when granting clemency to Nixon, and he said then that he worried about the alternative. In his official proclamation of a pardon, Ford contended that “it is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States.”
Trump now becoming the first president on the brink of a criminal trial permanently changes how he is remembered, Updegrove said.
“In the photo gallery that will be in that book, you are going to see as one of the larger photographs the mugshot of Trump, based on these proceedings. That’s a pretty big deal. That in itself is a pretty big deal,” Updegrove said. “It becomes a symbol, more or less, of the Trump presidency, not just a reflection of this particular aspect of Trump’s legacy. It’s the bigger picture of Donald Trump.”
More broadly, Updegrove said, Trump’s indictment reflects back on the state of the country.
“There was a time when honesty and integrity were the bedrock of the presidency,” he said, citing George Washington and the myth of the cherry tree, or Abraham Lincoln’s “Honest Abe” nickname, contrasted with Trump’s habit of falsehoods.
“Now Trump has been indicted with other possible indictments to come,” Updegrove said. “One has to wonder, does the morality of our president still matter to the American people or does it just matter that your side wins?”
ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Congressional Republicans quickly came to former President Donald Trump’s defense Thursday after he was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury, with Rep. Jim Jordan summarizing the party’s response in a one word tweet: “Outrageous.”
Jordan has led the charge against Alvin Bragg, teaming up with two other influential House committee chairs to demand testimony and documents from the district attorney related to the Trump probe. Bragg has rebuffed his efforts, stating it’s inappropriate for Congress to intervene in state or local investigations.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy vowed his caucus will “hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account” and said the American people “will not tolerate this injustice.”
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle took to Twitter to react to the historic indictment on Thursday evening, laying bare the sharp partisan divide when it comes to Trump.
GOP House and Senate members decried the investigation by the Manhattan district attorney as a political prosecution.
“The Democrat Party’s hatred for Donald Trump knows no bounds,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wrote. “The ‘substance’ of this political persecution is utter garbage. This is completely unprecedented and is a catastrophic escalation in the weaponization of the justice system.”
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, the No. 2 House Republican, called it a “sham” that is “one of the clearest examples of extremist Democrats weaponizing government to attack their political opponents.”
With the indictment under seal, it’s not yet clear what exact charges are being brought against Trump or whether they are related to the probe into the $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the final days of the 2016 presidential race.
“President Trump has been indicted,” Trump’s lawyers Susan Cecheles and Joe Tacopina said in a statement. “He did not commit any crime. We will vigorously fight this political prosecution in Court.”
Many Democrats, on the other hand, praised the decision as proof “no one is above the law.”
Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead House prosecutor in Trump’s first Senate trial following his impeachment — and a member of the House Jan. 6 select committee — said the historic indictment mirrored Trump’s “unprecedented” conduct.”
“A nation of laws must hold the rich and powerful accountable, even when they hold high office,” Schiff wrote. “Especially when they do. To do otherwise is not democracy.”
Rep. Jason Crow, D-Wisc., posted: “Today is a somber day for our nation. Former President Trump’s indictment reminds us that no one is above the law and that we are all afforded due process and equal protection under the law.”
While Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called it a “blatant abuse of power, the Democratic National Committee commented on what it said was Trump’s hold over the GOP.
“No matter what happens in Trump’s upcoming legal proceedings, it’s obvious the Republican Party remains firmly in the hold of Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans,” Ammar Moussa, the DNC’s national press secretary, said in a statement. “We will continue to hold Trump and all Republican candidates accountable for the extreme MAGA agenda that includes banning abortion, cutting Social Security and Medicare, and undermining free and fair elections.”
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump, who was indicted by the Manhattan district attorney on Thursday, can still be elected president — even if he is convicted — experts tell ABC News. But there are practical reasons that could make it a challenge, experts say.
Trump said recently at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference that he would “absolutely” stay in the race for president even if he were to be criminally indicted.
“I wouldn’t even think about leaving,” Trump told reporters ahead of his speech on Saturday. “Probably it will enhance my numbers.”
Trump has denied wrongdoing and has characterized the probe as part of a “witch hunt” against him.
The U.S. Constitution does not list the absence of a criminal record as a qualification for the presidency. It says only that natural born citizens who are at least 35 years old and have been a resident of the U.S. for 14 years can run for president.
Constitutional experts also told ABC News that previous Supreme Court rulings hold that Congress cannot add qualifications to the office of the president. In addition, a state cannot prohibit indicted or convicted felons from running for federal office.
“Some people are surprised to learn that there’s no constitutional bar on a felon running for president, but there’s no such bar,” said Kate Shaw, ABC News legal analyst and professor at Cardozo School of Law.
“Because of the 22nd Amendment, the individual can’t have been twice elected president previously,” Shaw said. “But there’s nothing in the Constitution disqualifying individuals convicted of crimes from running for or serving as president.”
Shaw said that while incarceration “would presumably make campaigning difficult if not impossible,” the impediment would be a “practical problem, not a legal one.”
James Sampler, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, told ABC News that the Constitution sets the minimal requirements, but leaves the rest up to the voters.
“It depends on the wisdom of the people to determine that an individual is not fit for office,” Sampler said. “So the most fundamental obstacle that President Trump has in seeking office in 2024 is the obstacle that anyone has, but he has it in a different and more pronounced way — which is proving to the voters that the individual deserves the office.”
If Trump were to be indicted or convicted and prevented by law from traveling out of state, Sampler said, that would impose a practical limitation on his ability to travel the country and campaign — but it wouldn’t prohibit him from running.
Sampler also pointed out an irony in the electoral system, in which many states bar convicted felons from voting. According to the Sentencing Project advocacy group, 48 states have laws that ban people with felony convictions from voting.
“It is a sad day for a country that ostensibly values democratic participation and equality, that individuals who’ve been convicted of a felony can be prohibited from participating even as voters in our democracy, but a president convicted of a felony is still allowed,” he said.
Jessica Levinson, a professor of election law at Loyola Law School, agreed.
“You could conceivably have a situation where the president of the United States is not disqualified from being president … but can’t vote for himself,” Levinson told ABC News.
“The interesting thing about the qualifications like you have to be born here, you have to live here for a certain amount of time … all of that is kind of getting at the idea that we want you to be loyal to our country,” Levinson said. “But you could conceivably be convicted of crimes against our country, and still be able to serve as president.”
(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Jamaal Bowman expanded Thursday on his prior outburst against Rep. Thomas Massie over gun violence, arguing more Americans “should be yelling and screaming” following the mass shooting in Nashville.
Bowman, who was a middle school principal prior to his election to Congress in 2020, argued the “broken” institution of Congress has failed to provide a remedy for the “sick society” that allows gun violence to occur regularly.
“We’re a sick society,” Bowman told reporters outside the Capitol. “We’re the only developed nation where this happens, and we’re sick because this institution (Congress) has been broken for so long.”
“The whole country should be yelling and screaming and marching on these steps to make sure we pass legislation to do something about gun trafficking, assault rifles, and to bring some commonsense gun control,” he added.
The New York Democrat was nearly as passionate as he was a day earlier when he first shouted at reporters to pressure Republicans to take action on gun reform. He said he believes Congress might address gun violence if the media pushed lawmakers “to do more.”
“Push us to do more,” he said. “The media is very important in the conversation.”
Addressing more directly what transpired with Massie, Bowman said Thursday that gun violence is personal to him as a former educator.
“I stood in my cafeteria every day at the door just in case someone came in to shoot up my school,” Bowman said.
Massie on Thursday tweeted a screenshot of a text message purportedly from an elementary school teacher voicing support to the Kentucky congressman for arming educators with guns.
“Sometimes I hear: ‘Teachers and administrators don’t want to carry, and they aren’t qualified.’ The reality is it only takes a few individuals like this person (who just texted me) to keep our kids safe, primarily as a deterrent to the psychopaths who choose unprotected targets,” he tweeted.
Bowman said he received calls from Texas, Kentucky and Florida after the video of him sounding off outside the House floor made waves on social media.
Asked whether he’s spoken with Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who was tapping Bowman on his back during the incident with Massie in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, Bowman said he didn’t realize Hoyer was trying to get his attention.
“The thing I love about Dem leadership [is that] they allow me to be me,” he said.
As members of Congress exited the House floor on Wednesday, Bowman began screaming about the need for legislative solutions. While most lawmakers shuffled past, Massie stopped and engaged.
“What are you talking about?” he asked.
“I’m talking about gun violence,” Bowman responded.
“You know there’s never been a school shooting in a school that allows teachers to carry,” Massie tried to argue.
“Carry guns! You think– More guns lead to more death!” Bowman retorted.
Massie repeatedly asked Bowman to calm down, to which the Democrat replied, “Calm down? Children are dying! Nine-year-old children!” and “I was screaming before you came and interrupted me.”
Gun reforms are expected to face an uphill battle in the Senate. The current makeup of the upper chamber means 10 Republicans would likely need to join all Democrats to overcome the 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster of the legislation.
Calls to abolish the filibuster to shepherd contentious bills through a polarized Congress have gained the support of many Democrats — including Bowman.
“Are we going to abolish the filibuster to pass gun reform?” Bowman asked. “We should.”
On Thursday afternoon, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy dodged reporters’ questions about what information Republicans need to gather on the Nashville shooting before deciding whether to consider new gun safety legislation.
(WASHINGTON) — An unusual cross-section of lawmakers has emerged against a TikTok ban, with usual ideological foes employing similar language to denounce what they say would be censorship.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is the latest to voice opposition to a total prohibition of the popular social media app — joining the ranks of progressive “Squad” members such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman and others.
Paul effectively shut down an attempt Wednesday from his Republican colleague Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., to get unanimous consent to ban the Chinese-owned app.
“If you don’t like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don’t use them,” Paul said in a 12-minute floor speech. “But don’t think that any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right to ban them.”
Paul argued a ban would amount to violations of the First Amendment, adding, “The Constitution actually prohibits bills of attainder. You’re not allowed to have a specific bill against a person or a company.”
“So this fails on two egregious points,” he said, cautioning people should “beware of those who peddle fear.”
Hawley argued Paul was advocating for a “right to espionage.”
“I have never before heard on this floor a defense of the right to spy. I didn’t realize that the First Amendment contained a right to espionage,” the Missouri Republican shot back.
TikTok has faced growing bipartisan scrutiny from government officials, with the animosity coming to a head last week in a testy hearing between CEO Shou Zi Chew and House members.
Lawmakers and Biden administration officials have questioned who has access to data stored on the app, with some describing the platform as a threat to national security due to its parent company’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
“Every accusation of data gathering that’s been attributed to TikTok could also be attributed to domestic Big Tech companies,” Paul said.
Ocasio-Cortez, Bowman and a handful of other progressives have also argued that a ban on TikTok raises free speech issues and wouldn’t solve the broader problem of data gathering on various Big Tech platforms. Bowman similarly invoked First Amendment concerns when voicing his opposition to a ban.
“The First Amendment gives us the right to speak freely and to communicate freely and TikTok as a platform has created a community and a space for free speech for 150 million Americans and counting,” he said last week.
Ocasio-Cortez offered her defense of the company in her first-ever TikTok video last week. She told viewers a ban “doesn’t really address the core of the issue, which is the fact that major social media companies are allowed to collect troves of deeply personal data about you that you don’t know about without really any significant regulation whatsoever.”
The New York Democrat also noted the United States has never banned a social media app and that Congress hasn’t received a classified briefing — as is normally the case — regarding national security concerns.
There are several attempts to ban the app working their way through Congress, including the DATA Act from House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and the RESTRICT Act from Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said he expects the House will move forward with legislation to address TikTok but didn’t detail when such action would take place.
(WASHINGTON) — Russia’s detention of an American journalist is sparking sharp condemnation from the Biden administration and Capitol Hill.
Evan Gershkovich from The Wall Street Journal was detained in Ekaterinburg, Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) said Thursday. The intelligence agency has accused Gershkovich of spying and collecting “state secrets.” The Kremlin took a sharper tone, saying Gershkovich was caught “red-handed.”
Gershkovich has pleaded not guilty.
The American faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. His case is marked “top secret.”
“In the strongest possible terms, we condemn the Kremlin’s continued attempts to intimidate, repress, and punish journalists and civil society voices,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement.
The White House said Thursday it was in contact with the Wall Street Journal and Gershkovich’s family, and that the State Department has been in touch with the Russian government and is working to secure consular access to Gershkovich.
“The targeting of American citizens by the Russian government is unacceptable,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.
Both Blinken and Jean-Pierre reiterated guidance that Americans not travel to Russia.
President Joe Biden has been briefed on the situation, White House spokesperson John Kirby said.
Gershkovich covers Russia and Ukraine for the WSJ. The newspaper “vehemently denies” the spying allegations brought against their reporter and is seeking his immediate release.
The U.S. has previously negotiated to secure the release of wrongfully detained Americans abroad. Last year, WNBA star Britney Griner was released in a prisoner exchange with Russia following a monthslong saga after her detention on drug charges.
But Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov downplayed any suggestion of an exchange, saying it’s too early for such talks.
“I wouldn’t raise a question on this now, because you yourself understand that some exchanges that took place in the past took place for people who were already serving sentences,” Ryabkov told reporters.
Gershkovich’s arrest comes amid the worsening relationship between Russia and the United States.
Asked if there were any indication that this was retaliation by Russia, Kirby said he couldn’t say as an investigation is ongoing.
“We do not know right now,” he said. “We are still trying to gain as much information and context as we can. It’s early hours, so I can assure you we’re all working as hard as we can, but we don’t know any more than what I’ve been able to share with you in my opening statements.”
When asked Thursday if he was concerned the reporter’s detention was an escalation on Russia’s part, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said yes.
“Putin plays all these little games with bluffing and brinkmanship and this is another,” Schumer said in a press conference. “To have an innocent journalist held hostage for that is really despicable. I am urging the administration to do everything they can to get him free.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, R-Md., responded to Gershkovich’s detention by stating a free press is “absolutely essential.”
“The Russian people need to know the truth, which is why they want to arrest reporters who tell people — they would not be for this carnage that Putin and his dictatorship has affected and the tragedy and war crimes that are being committed,” Hoyer told reporters.
ABC News’ Patrick Reevell, Joseph Simonetti and Molly Nagle contributed to this report.
