Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Senate on Thursday, in a procedural move, cleared the way for a final vote on repealing decades-old war powers measures that authorized two wars with Iraq — first under former President George H. W. Bush in the Gulf War, and then by his son, former President George W. Bush — with supporters fearing that the outdated authorizations could be misused by a future president.

In a strong bipartisan showing, the Senate voted 67-27 in a test vote to repeal the authorizations.

It’s now all but certain to pass the Senate in a final vote next week, but it’s less clear is how a Republican-controlled House will handle the legislation.

Noting that the U.S. and Iraq are now security partners in the region, lead co-sponsor Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia argued on Wednesday that it is long past time for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority to declare war, saying, “After 20 years, it’s time to repeal this and show again that Congress can exercise that Article I muscle,” referencing the war declaration powers spelled out in the Constitution.

Kaine, whose son is a Marine infantry officer, recalled being angered by what he called a rush to war in Iraq ahead of the 2002 midterm elections, when he was a lieutenant governor, and then later fought to get on the Senate Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee to repeal the two Iraq “AUMFs” — or authorizations for the use of military force.

“Americans are tired of endless wars,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, Wednesday ahead of the debate.

He argued much the same Thursday, saying, “The nation of Iraq has changed dramatically since 2002, and it’s time the laws on the books catch up with the changes. The Iraq war has itself been long over. This AUMF has outlived its purpose and we can no longer justify keeping it in effect.”

Shortly before the Senate was set to vote, the White House weighed in with President Joe Biden’s support.

“President Biden remains committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans from modern terrorist threats,” it said in a statement.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week voted 13-8 to repeal both the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Schumer has confirmed that there will be votes on amendments next week before final passage. Kaine said he thought it likely that those would include the two GOP amendments rejected by the committee.

One — by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas — is at the core of GOP opposition to repeal. Some Republicans have argued that repealing the laws might risk sending a dangerous message in an ever volatile part of the world, particularly with regard to Iran. The top Republican on the committee — Jim Risch of Idaho — has repeatedly maintained that repealing the measures would send a message to Iran that the U.S. lacks resolve.

The Cruz amendment would affirm that the U.S. has the authority to attack Iran, though the committee last week rejected that measure 13-8.

GOP Sen. Todd Young, a lead sponsor of the repeal effort with Kaine and a Navy and Marine Corps veteran, argued that while he, too, shares his colleagues’ concerns about Iran, a future administration should come to Congress and seek a specific approval for military action.

“I believe that the threat from Iran is so significant and so different from the wars since 9/11 or Saddam Hussain’s Iraq, that we must pass a new AUMF should the situation require it,” Young contended when the bill was first introduced. “Those advocating for leaving the 2002 AUMF in place as a means of deterring Iran, when that was in no way the intention of this authorization, would be building on past abuses and advocating for precisely the kind of expansion of war power authorities that ultimately makes Congress and this committee irrelevant.”

And the chairman of the panel, Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, contended Wednesday that any future administration still has authority to go after ISIS and other Iranian backed groups through the still-viable 2001 AUMF that Congress approved for the war in Afghanistan and to go after al-Qaeda – the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, as well as to pursue the Taliban, ISIS, and affiliated terror groups.

“This will have no impact on defending against any Iranian threat. The president already has the authority under the ’01 AUMF and the constitution for military operations against ISIS or Iranian backed groups that threaten US personnel,” Menendez said Wednesday.

The second GOP-sponsored amendment would have repealed that 2001 use-of-force authorization but was roundly rejected by all committee members but its sponsor, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

The Biden administration said back in 2021 when the House first voted to repeal the 2002 authorization that it supported the effort.

“The administration supports the repeal of the 2002 AUMF, as the United States has no ongoing military activities that rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis, and repeal of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on current military operations,” the administration said in a statement of administration policy.

The repeal effort’s fate in the now GOP-controlled House, though, is unclear, despite its sponsors spanning the political spectrum from the far right via Chip Roy of Texas to moderate Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia.

One senator, a veteran of the Iraq War herself, made a passionate case for repeal Wednesday.

“The documents set the legal framework for military action that are supposed to define the mission for the Americans who are going downrange, but lately, too many in these halls of power in Washington have shrugged off that duty, hiding behind this outrageously outdated document. They’ve been scared of the political risks that come with bringing these wars back into the spotlight. They’ve been staring down election days,” said double amputee Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.

“Congress has shirked responsibility to our troops. For more than 20 years since passing these AUMF’s those in power have stretched and skewed their original intent. They’ve left our troops without a clearly defined mission,” she said.

ABC News’ Allison Pecorin and Justin Gomez contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Chasten Buttigieg, author and the husband of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, told co-hosts of ABC’s The View on Thursday that he has not heard from former Vice President Mike Pence since Pence made what the White House called a “homophobic joke” aimed at his family over the weekend.

Asked by co-host Sunny Hostin if he’s heard anything from Pence, or if expects to, Buttigieg quickly said, “No.”

“No, and I think it’s not ‘woke,’ you know, to say that something is homophobic or misogynistic. Doesn’t make you woke. It doesn’t make you a snowflake to tell someone they made a mistake,” he said, defending his husband for taking parental leave.

“I know we all struggle to find a balance between work and family life. I’ve never seen someone work harder than my husband to find that balance, but I think Republican or Democrat, we can all agree when your child — our prematurely born child — is barely five pounds, when your kid is connected to a ventilator, you don’t want to be anywhere but by their bedside,” he said.

Pence, headlining at the annual Gridiron Club dinner in Washington for journalists and politicians, mocked Buttigieg for taking parental leave after the birth of his adopted twins, while he said Americans faced issues with air travel.

“He took two months ‘maternity’ leave whereupon thousands of travelers were stranded in airports, the air traffic system shut down, and airplanes nearly collided on our runways. Pete is the only person in human history to have a child and everyone else gets postpartum depression,” Pence said, according to reporters present.

The Buttigiegs’ twins, now 18 months, were born prematurely, developed Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection (RSV) and one was hospitalized and put on a ventilator — a “terrifying” experience that the couple documented on Medium and a point Chasten raised in a tweet aimed at Pence.

“I spoke up because we all have an obligation to hold people accountable for when they say something wrong, especially when it’s misogynistic, especially when it’s homophobic, and I just don’t take that when it’s towards my family, and I don’t think anyone else would, especially when you bring a very small, medically-fragile child into it,” he said.

Buttigieg also said Pence’s comments were “part of a much bigger trend attacking families.”

“The thing about what he said is it flies in the face of what he says he is. He says he’s a family values Republican. So I don’t think he’s practicing what he preaches here,” he said.

“Someone wrote this, and he checked it and purposely said maternity leave rather than paternity leave — but also, it’s a bigger conversation about the work that women do in families — taking a swipe at all women and all families and expecting that women would stay home and raise children is a misogynistic view, especially from a man who said just last year that we should be supporting more people that adopt,” he added.

ABC News’ Gio Benitez asked the transportation secretary himself on Monday afternoon if he thought Pence owed him an apology, to which he responded, “I’ll let others speak to that.”

“It’s a strange thing to me because the last time I saw him, he asked me about my kids like a normal person would. I guess, you know, at a political event in white tie, it’s a little different,” Buttigieg said.

Marc Short, Pence’s former chief of staff and co-chair of an advocacy group Pence founded, called the response from the White House “faux outrage.”

“The White House would be wise to focus less on placating the woke police and focus more on bank failures, planes nearly colliding in mid-air, train derailments, and the continued supply chain crisis,” Short said in an earlier statement.

The conversation on The View Thursday turned to the significance of paid parental leave, which is not required by federal law in the U.S.

“Everyone should have paid family leave, for both spouses, it’s so important,” he said. “There’s nothing weak about that work. It’s the hardest work you’ll ever do in your life.”

Transportation Secretary Buttigieg also told co-hosts of The View in October 2021 that “maybe some good came out of” the attacks he’s faced because, he said, “It’s helped us have a conversation about parental leave.”

“Every American ought to be able to get paid parental leave. That’s something that the president believes in and has proposed. It’s something I believe,” he added at the time.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Democrats in Congress are proposing additional aid for local first responders amid the ongoing conversation concerning rail safety in the wake of the February train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.

In the time since the Feb. 3 derailment, lawmakers in Washington have focused on the state and federal response to the spilling of toxic chemicals that contaminated soil and water in East Palestine and neighboring Darlington, Pennsylvania. Now, Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Bob Casey is introducing legislation that would give local emergency workers additional resources to deal with similar incidents in the future.

According to U.S. Department of Transportation data, there have been an average of 1,475 train derailments per year from 2005-2021. Firefighters, police and other local agencies that deal with hazardous material are often the first to arrive on the scene of hazardous derailments, even before state and federal teams can be deployed.

Casey’s bill, set to be introduced Thursday, would create a new fund which would be used to reimburse emergency responders for costs incurred when responding to a train derailment in their communities.

That fund, which would be managed by the Federal Railroad Administration, would be paid into by shippers and carriers moving hazardous material.

Democratic senators from the states most affected by the East Palestine derailment are co-sponsoring the legislation: Sherrod Brown of Ohio and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.

“The first responders who risked their lives and wellbeing to protect Pennsylvania and Ohio from Norfolk Southern’s disaster are heroes who deserve much more than our gratitude,” Casey said in a statement, referring to the company operating the train that derailed last month.

“The Assistance for Local Heroes During Train Crises Act will help our communities better prepare for future derailments and cover the cost of damaged equipment, overtime pay, and more—all paid for by the companies that ship and carry these materials,” Casey said. “Along with the Railway Safety Act, this legislation will help keep our communities safe from hazardous train derailments and hold railroads accountable for the damage these crises inflict.”

In the aftermath of the East Palestine derailment, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has emphasized the need for increased response training for first responders. Earlier this month, he announced he had spoken with the CEOs of both Norfolk Southern and CSX rails about those additional resources.

Casey said he identified similar needs in Pennsylvania.

In response, Norfolk Southern agreed to create a new first responder training center near East Palestine, with the first sessions set to begin Tuesday in Bellevue. Trainings will focus on preparing for and responding to rail incidents involving hazardous materials.

The company says they have also reimbursed and committed more than $3 million to the East Palestine Fire Department for equipment used in the derailment response, including $220,000 to replace self-contained breathing apparatus air packs, which allow firefighters to breathe compressed air when responding to fires.

“The derailment in East Palestine made clear that ensuring first responders are prepared for disasters involving hazardous materials is vitally important to the safety of communities,” DeWine said in a statement last week. “Often first responders are volunteers, and their need to have the most up-to-date training and equipment is essential. Today’s commitment by Norfolk Southern is an important next step in the company’s commitment to make the citizens of Ohio and of East Palestine whole after the recent derailment, a commitment Ohio will continue to monitor closely.”

Casey’s bill goes further, creating a fund to anticipate future challenges. It comes as Congress continues to debate whether and how to regulate railroads.

Casey, Brown and Fetterman, along with Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance, have already introduced a more expansive rail reform bill, the Railway Safety Act, in response to the East Palestine derailment.

That proposal has bipartisan co-sponsors, including Republican Sens. Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio, of Missouri and Florida. It would enhance safety precautions for trains carrying hazardous material, including by requiring that wheels of trains carrying hazardous materials be scanned for heat every 10 miles; mandating a two-person crew aboard all trains; and increasing the fines that the U.S. Department of Transportation can levy against corporations for breaking rules.

The Railway Safety Act would also implement new provisions that would require carriers to provide advance notification and information to state emergency response officials about what they are transporting.

The legislation Casey is introducing on Thursday would require local officials, like fire departments and other emergency responders, to be kept in the loop when a train is moving hazardous material through their communities.

Casey’s office noted local emergency responders and firefighters are often “the first line of defense for public safety.”

They do so sometimes “with limited knowledge of what has been spilled or caught fire” and, even so, “help evacuate residents, fight fires, close roads, and perform other urgent tasks to mitigate disaster,” Casey said — work which can “quickly surpass the budget of local first responder organizations, especially if they need to pay workers overtime, replace damaged equipment, or purchase supplies” and especially for smaller, more rural towns through which these rails often run.

“Emergency personnel who respond to hazardous train derailments deserve more than our thanks,” Casey said.

What remains to be seen, however, is whether there will be the necessary Republican support to move forward on enacting Casey’s bill focused on first responders.

The East Palestine derailment inspired some unusual bipartisanship among area politicians, who acknowledged the trauma that derailment caused to the village — and the urgent need for systemic safety improvements in the rail industry.

Still, larger efforts to impose new federal-level rules on the rail industry have struggled to gain steam with all Republicans in Congress, who worry about prematurely regulating a private industry.

Conservatives in the House cast the reform legislation as overly restrictive while some in the GOP have also said they want to see the National Transportation Safety Board’s final report on the derailment before endorsing legislation. That report could take more than a year to be completed.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to work with the legislation’s sponsors to move the Railway Safety Act onto the floor. It’s possible that Casey’s new legislation could be included as part of that discussion.

But without 60 votes, the legislation won’t clear the Senate. That’s led proponents of new regulations to grow restless.

“I tell you what I’d do on that rail bill: I’d go to the floor and I’d make senators vote on it every single day until there’s some progress made,” Hawley said Wednesday. “The strategy here … from the rail lobbyist and their allies is to delay, delay, delay until public pressure appears to have cooled off. Meanwhile, the people of East Palestine and others as these accidents continue will have gotten no relief.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration is demanding TikTok’s Chinese owner sell its stake in the app or risk getting banned, the company and a U.S. official told ABC News.

TikTok confirmed to ABC News on Wednesday that it was recently contacted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). The company said CFIUS prefers for ByteDance to sell its stake in TikTok, rather than reach an agreement with the U.S. government over national security concerns.

This move is an escalation and comes as the administration has been publicly hardening its stance against TikTok. Last week, the White House came out in support of bipartisan legislation that could be used to ban TikTok.

The administration has been negotiating an agreement over data security with TikTok for two years now. This news was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

In a statement to ABC News, TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter said: “If protecting national security is the objective, divestment doesn’t solve the problem: a change in ownership would not impose any new restrictions on data flows or access. The best way to address concerns about national security is with the transparent, U.S.-based protection of U.S. user data and systems, with robust third-party monitoring, vetting and verification, which we are already implementing.”

TikTok added that it will continue to move forward with a plan called “Project Texas” to safeguard U.S. user data as it evaluates the Biden administration’s new position.

The White House and Treasury Department, which oversees CFIUS, declined to comment.

TikTok has come under growing pressure in Washington amid concerns that the popular video sharing app’s parent company ByteDance would share U.S. user data with the Chinese government. TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is scheduled to testify before Congress for the first time next week.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(AMARILLO, Texas) — A federal judge in Texas said Wednesday that he plans to rule soon on whether to overturn the federal government’s approval of an abortion medication some 23 years ago — a decision that could pull the drug from the market nationwide, even in states where abortion is legal.

The promise by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk followed a daylong hearing in Amarillo, Texas, that attracted local church members lining up before dawn and filling the 19 seats open to the public.

Several media outlets were blocked from getting inside due to a lack of space while demonstrators, both for and against abortion access, marched outside the courtroom steps.

“Let us pray” were the first words spoken in the hearing by a court assistant kicking off four hours of arguments.

Abortion rights supporters said they weren’t optimistic after the hearing, noting the judge appeared open to siding with the conservative plaintiffs in the case, who argued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was wrong to approve the medication mifepristone.

“There are a whole host of reasons why this court should just dismiss [the lawsuit] out of hand … But we’re obviously very concerned that that’s not going to be the case,” said Carrie Flaxman, senior director for public policy litigation and law with Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Erik Baptist, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, the group that filed the lawsuit, said the judge needed to provide a check on the FDA, which he said ignored safety concerns with mifepristone — an allegation the government and most medical doctors refute.

“As we stated in court, the FDA never had the authority to approve these drugs and remove important safeguards, despite the substantial evidence of the harms women and girls who undergo this dangerous drug regimen could suffer,” Baptist said.

In addition to curbing access to a common form of abortion — about half of all abortions rely on mifepristone — the ruling could have sweeping implications for how drugs are approved in the U.S., potentially curbing the regulatory powers of the FDA and emboldening advocacy groups to challenge other medications and vaccines.

In attendance on Wednesday were mostly local church members from Amarillo, including several from the Central Church of Christ.

As the small number of public attendees looked on, the plaintiffs laid out their case: They told the judge that doctors were unfairly burdened by having to treat complications arising from the abortion pill and that it causes harm to women who take the medication. They spoke about how many states are prohibiting abortion, yet their residents are still finding access to this medication.

“Relief must be complete and nationwide,” Baptist told the judge.

Government lawyers defending the FDA said the government has reviewed extensive data and found no safety concerns.

“The public interest would be dramatically harmed” by siding with the plaintiffs, said Julie Straus Harris, an attorney for the Justice Department.

For his part, Judge Kacsmaryk didn’t tip his hand on how he’d rule and an appeal from either side is likely. But he zeroed in on whether it is legal to mail a substance causing an abortion. Under the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law, that remains illegal. But the Justice Department has said that law doesn’t apply in this case because no one can ever know exactly how a drug will be used when it’s mailed.

The judge also asked questions about other fast-tracked medicines and why the FDA would swiftly approve a drug when pregnancy wasn’t an “illness.” Government lawyers said pregnancy was a “condition,” while advocates noted that the drug is still used to treat miscarriages.

Julie Sims, a church member who watched the hearing in the courtroom, said she left in disbelief such a medication is legal in some states and frustration that they didn’t talk more about babies.

“Some people don’t even know how to take an aspirin properly. How can they be expected to take something like this?” she said.

Outside the courtroom was a very different scene, with protestors shouting and one dressed as a kangaroo to suggest an illegitimate “kangaroo court.”

They argued the Trump-appointed judge was biased.

“He’s a lifelong activist,” said Rachel O’Leary Carmona, executive director of the Women’s March.

ABC News’ Jim Ryan contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(TALLAHASSEE, Fla.) — A Donald Trump-aligned political group on Wednesday said it filed a complaint with the Florida Commission of Ethics accusing Gov. Ron DeSantis of abusing his office to mount a “shadow presidential campaign” — which DeSantis’ team dismissed as a “frivolous” claim.

DeSantis, the popular and polarizing governor of a former swing state that has shifted bright red, is seen by many as Trump’s biggest potential challenger for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

While DeSantis is publicly playing down the discussion of his White House ambitions, ABC News has confirmed that he’s privately indicated to allies that he intends to launch a campaign.

DeSantis’ team has been working under the assumption that an announcement would come following the end of the Florida legislative session in May or in June, sources told ABC News. However, the exact timing has not been nailed down.

In recent months, DeSantis has also become a major target of Trump and some Trump allies.

The Wednesday complaint, from Trump super PAC Make America Great Again Inc., asks the state ethics commission to examine DeSantis in light of the political action committees supporting him, his book tour pegged to a new memoir and what the complaint describes as his personal gains, misuse of his office and unacceptable receipt of gifts — which the complaint links to support by outside political groups — among other wrongful benefits.

The letter calls DeSantis a “de facto candidate” for president of the United States.

Make America Great Again Inc., a political action committee that can campaign for Trump but not coordinate with him, is arguing that DeSantis is taking the steps to be a presidential candidate despite not announcing an official presidential run.

The complaint alleges that DeSantis’ political activities and work with the outside groups knowingly influence how he will act under Florida’s resign-to-run law, which would require him to step down from his current office if he seeks an office out of state.

“[H]e is receiving gifts with the understanding that they will influence his official judgment” to ultimately run for president, the complaint claims.

In a statement to ABC News, DeSantis’ communications director, Taryn Fenske, said they are “adding this to the list of frivolous and politically motivated attacks.”

“It’s inappropriate to use state ethics complaints for partisan purposes,” Fenske said.

One of the PACs mentioned in the complaint is the recently formed Never Back Down PAC, created by Ken Cuccinelli, a former Department of Homeland Security official under Trump and a former attorney general of Virginia.

Cuccinelli released a statement following the complaint’s release, saying that “the President Trump [he] knew would never have played these types of establishment games.”

“The overwhelming response we’ve received to building a DeSantis grassroots effort is exciting – and I’m sure intimidating. No wonder the folks on that campaign are nervous. They should be. The MAGA movement is excited to look to its next chapter and future conservative leadership. They are excited at the potential of a President Ron DeSantis,” Cuccinelli said.

Trump has ramped up his attacks on the governor over the past couple of months, recently telling Politico he regrets endorsing DeSantis during DeSantis’ 2018 gubernatorial campaign.

Although Make America Great Again Inc. said they filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics, Lynn Blais, a spokesperson for the commission, told ABC News they cannot confirm or deny the existence of a complaint.

Blais said there is no set timeframe for a decision being made on a complaint and that the commission meets every six to eight weeks.

“There’s so many variables related to investigations,” Blais said.

Of the nine members of the commission, five were appointed by DeSantis, including Glenton Gilzean, the chair.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Several top GOP senators are pushing back on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ position that “becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” is not a vital U.S. national interest.

DeSantis’ statement terming the war a “territorial dispute” sparked backlash from members of his own party, including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., early Trump backer Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

Cornyn, the senior senator from Texas, told ABC News that he doesn’t understand why DeSantis — a veteran himself — would be against shoring up support for Ukraine amid Russia’s invasion.

“I was kind of surprised. I mean, Governor DeSantis is a veteran. He’s a smart guy. I think he’s been a very good governor. And I just I don’t understand him saying that Ukraine isn’t important to the United States,” Cornyn, who called the issue “absolutely important,” said.

“It raises questions,” Cornyn said when asked whether DeSantis’ remarks gave him concern about the Republican governor’s understanding of the issue.

When asked whether questions about the size and scope of American aid to Ukraine could become a leading GOP narrative on the 2024 campaign trial, Tillis said he thinks “people need to open the aperture.”

“Take a look at do you really want Russia to to own the breadbasket of Europe, and that’s Ukraine, affecting food supplies? People are forgetting what we’ve had to do to get food into North Africa because of the conflict. Do you really want that under Russian control?” he said.

Rubio, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the war in Ukraine is “not a territorial dispute in the sense that any more than it would be a territorial dispute if the United States decided that it wanted to invade Canada or take over the Bahamas.”

“I don’t know what he’s trying to do or what the goal is,” Rubio continued in a conversation with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt regarding DeSantis’ comments. “Obviously, he doesn’t deal with foreign policy every day as governor.”

Rubio, the senior senator from DeSantis’ state, also noted the importance of the conflict as a U.S. national security concern.

“It’s not the number one national security interest the United States has, but it’s an important one. And there are things we can do and should do to further that interest by helping them. It’s not an unlimited interest,” he added.

Graham, without mentioning DeSantis by name, seemed to criticize him as “missing a lot” regarding the international conflict.

“To those who believe that Russia’s unprovoked and barbaric invasion of Ukraine is not a priority for the United States – you are missing a lot.” Graham wrote in a Twitter thread posted on Tuesday.

But DeSantis’ stance, especially his contention that “our citizens are also entitled to know how the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being utilized in Ukraine,” has several supporters within his party. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley and Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar have expressed skepticism of U.S. support for Ukraine, and they have been on the record voting against spending packages to aid Ukrainians in the conflict.

GOP Rep. Chip Roy, a member of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus who last May condemned billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine as “indefensible,” took the step of endorsing DeSantis for president on Wednesday, nodding to the governor’s stance on Ukraine in his statement of support.

“Perhaps most of all Governor DeSantis makes clear he would lead our nation as commander in chief with the kind of resolve and sober strength that produces peace through strength. A veteran himself, he recognizes that a military is best when it is strong, non-politcally correct and lethal– while being sparingly but decisively used and not mired in endless, protracted military engagements all around the globe,” Roy wrote in a statement.

The Republican governor, widely viewed as a top contender for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, dinged the Biden administration for “virtual ‘blank check’ funding of this conflict for ‘as long as it takes,’ without any defined objectives or accountability.”

“The U.S. should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders,” DeSantis said in his response to a questionnaire from Fox News opinion host Tucker Carlson, which Carlson shared Monday.

“F-16s and long-range missiles should therefore be off the table. These moves would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict and drawing us closer to a hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable,” he continued.

Former President Donald Trump adopted a similar stance in his response to Carlson’s questionnaire.

“Is opposing Russia in Ukraine a vital American national strategic interest?” Trump asked.

The two probable GOP frontrunners’ stance on Ukraine is directly at odds with other Republican candidates and potential 2024 hopefuls, including former Vice President Mike Pence and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who has declared her candidacy. Both have publicly said that supporting Ukraine is of vital interest to the U.S.

ABC News’ Trish Turner, Brittany Shepherd and Tal Axelrod contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Stormy Daniels met with prosecutors Wednesday at the request of the Manhattan district attorney’s office, her attorney said in a tweet, as the office continues its ongoing criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump’s role in a hush money payment made to Daniels near the end of the 2016 presidential campaign.

“Stormy responded to questions and has agreed to make herself available as a witness, or for further inquiry if needed,” her attorney, Clark Brewster, wrote in the tweet.

Daniels met with prosecutors over Zoom, said a source familiar with the investigation.

A spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg declined to comment.

Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, paid $130,000 to Daniels in the closing days of the 2016 presidential campaign to allegedly keep her quiet about an affair she claimed to have had with Trump. The former president has denied the affair and his attorneys have framed the funds as an extortion payment.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is mulling whether to charge Trump with falsifying business records, after the Trump Organization allegedly reimbursed Cohen for the payment then logged the reimbursement as a legal expense, sources have told ABC News.

“Thank you to my amazing attorney … for helping me in our continuing fight for truth and justice,” Daniels wrote in a tweet Wednesday afternoon.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(PHARR, Texas) — Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz told lawmakers on Wednesday that parts of the southern border are in “crisis” and that U.S. authorities do not have “operational control” despite recent declines from the historically high levels of illegal migration seen in the past year.

“The migration flow represents challenges and — in some areas — a crisis situation,” Ortiz said, citing the more than 900,000 unauthorized migrant encounters so far this budget year.

Ortiz painted a complex and dynamic picture of the southern border in testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee, noting that Border Patrol apprehensions over the past two months have “declined significantly.” In January, apprehensions hit the lowest point since the early weeks of the Biden administration, according to Customs and Border Protection data.

“Challenges and crisis are nothing new for the Border Patrol, and I’m incredibly proud of our personnel as well as our many partners,” Ortiz said.

House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., asked Ortiz point-blank if the U.S. is currently meeting the definition of “operational control” at the southern border, as defined by federal law.

“No, sir,” Ortiz responded.

However, by that measure, no administration in U.S. history has ever achieved such control. Title 8 of the U.S. Code defines operational control as the “prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States,” a task complicated by the vast size and geographic variety of the southwest.

The Border Patrol itself has defined operational control differently than under Title 8. Instead of setting the bar at sealing the border between official crossing points, the agency has defined control as its ability to respond to specific and immediate threats.

Still, Ortiz told the House committee, there were problems that Congress could help solve.

“Today’s border environment requires a whole-of-government solution to include international engagements, resourcing and consequences which could be in the form of legislative or policy adjustments,” Ortiz said. “And that is where I asked for your help. We need more options.”

In a statement on Wednesday, White House spokesperson Ian Sams accused Republicans of “playing partisan games at the border,” noting their lack of support for President Joe Biden’s border security funding proposals.

“Perhaps House Republicans could take the time at this hearing to look the Chief of the Border Patrol in the eye and honestly explain to him why they want to slash the funding needed to combat fentanyl trafficking, stop unlawful border crossings, and conduct other important law enforcement efforts at the border,” Sams said.

While conservatives in Congress have approved funds to the border multiple times under Biden, they have since said more money isn’t appropriate without different border policies. Others, like Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, have called Biden’s proposed border funding “more talk with no action” because it doesn’t fix issues with border agent staffing and more.

Republican House committee members held Wednesday’s hearing at South Texas College near the border in Pharr, Texas. Green opened the hearing by admonishing Democrats for not attending.

Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee, pulled out of the hearing over what he said were Republican attempts to “score political points.”

“After careful consideration, Committee Democrats have decided not to participate in the Republicans’ field hearing this week,” Thompson said in a statement. “Unfortunately, it has become clear that Republicans planned to politicize this event from the start, breaking with the Committee’s proud history of bipartisanship.”

Thompson said Democrats plan to visit the southern border as soon as this week.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is putting deregulatory reforms implemented under former President Donald Trump back in the spotlight.

The abrupt implosion of the country’s 16th-largest bank last week resulted in swift finger-pointing in Washington.

President Joe Biden and many progressive Democrats have blamed, in part, a 2018 law that rolled back some of the Dodd-Frank Act — a series of federal regulations passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Republicans, on the other hand, are decrying so-called “woke” practices at the bank as well as government spending and inflation as the culprits.

Though there’s more to learn about the bank’s downfall, several experts told ABC News it was a failure of regulation and supervision.

“The Federal Reserve completely missed major classic red flags at Silicon Valley Bank,” said Aaron Klein, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Here’s what you need to know as the political fallout continues.

What is the Dodd-Frank Act?

In response to the worst recession since the Great Depression, Congress passed a sprawling law in 2010 overhauling federal financial regulation.

One of its major provisions was designating any bank with more than $50 billion in assets a “systemically important” financial institution — or “too big to fail” — and thus subject to enhanced prudential standards, such as “stress tests” and certain capital planning and liquidity requirements.

“Dodd-Frank massively empowered the Federal Reserve to more forcefully regulate banks, including those where it wasn’t the direct bank regulator,” Klein said.

What did Trump do?

The Dodd-Frank Act was met with animosity from the industry, which argued the regulations were burdensome and only necessary for the largest banks. Silicon Valley Bank’s CEO Gregory Becker was among those calling for lighter regulations.

After years of political pressure, Congress passed a law that rolled back some of those rules for smaller and mid-tier banks.

Among the biggest changes was raising the asset threshold for “systemically important” institutions from $50 billion to $250 billion. Under the law, the Federal Reserve still had the right to apply the Dodd-Frank regulations to banks with at least $100 billion in assets if they chose to do so.

Trump signed it into law in May 2018, calling it “big deal for our country.” The push to alter Dodd-Frank split the Democratic Party, and ultimately more than a dozen Senate Democrats joined Republicans to support the deregulations.

“It reduced stress testing, it reduced collateral calculations, it reduced the supervisory stress test and it enabled them not to publicly conduct or report their own company-run stress tests,” Dennis Kelleher, the president & CEO of the nonprofit Better Markets, said of the 2018 law. “It blew a hole in several of the key financial stability protection rules.”

Debate rages over 2018 law amid SVB’s collapse

Critics, including Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, have said the law’s softening of regulations contributed to Silicon Valley Bank’s demise.

Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, co-author of the Dodd-Frank Act and a board member of the recently shutdown Signature Bank, told Bloomberg he didn’t think the 2018 changes had an impact. Trump, too, defended it, claiming banks were getting “eaten alive” by regulations.

And some Democrats who backed the law are defending it. Sen. Mark Warner told “This Week” on Sunday he thought it “put in place an appropriate level of regulation on mid-sized banks.” Sen. Tim Kaine said regional and community banks “really needed” the relief at the time, and that “solutions should wait until there’s an analysis of causes.”

Amid the debate, experts told ABC News stress tests and other financial-safety requirements may have caught problems at the institution earlier but there were warning signs Federal Reserve supervisors should’ve seen regardless.

“This was a failure of supervision … the red flags that were going on at SVB, you didn’t need enhanced prudential standards to catch that,” Klein said.

Those concerns included the bank’s explosive asset growth, its reliance on uninsured deposits and the impact of high interest rates on its long-term bonds.

“Those deregulatory reforms may well have contributed to laxer rather than stricter oversight,” Lawrence Baxter, a law professor at Duke University and former executive at Wachovia, said of the 2018 law. “Having said that, I don’t think the regulators are entirely off the hook because they still have power to take action when they observe rapid deterioration. And we’ll have to find out why they didn’t.”

What’s next?

Biden on Monday specifically cited the Trump-era rollbacks as he addressed the banking system, vowing to work for more regulation.

“I’m going to ask Congress and the banking regulators to strengthen the rules for banks to make it less likely that this kind of bank failure will happen again and to protect American jobs and small businesses,” the president said.

Warren and Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., have already unveiled legislation to repeal the 2018 rollbacks.

Republicans, so far, have expressed no interest in revisiting the law. Rep. Patrick McHenry, a North Carolina Republican who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, said he has “confidence in our financial regulators and the protections already in place to ensure the safety and soundness of our financial system.” Sen. Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, told Fox News that “nothing in the Dodd-Frank reforms we put together did anything with regard to this crisis.”

Meanwhile, the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating the Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse, two people familiar with the situation confirmed to ABC News. The Federal Reserve Board is also reviewing the supervision and regulation of the bank, which is set to be released by May 1.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.