Politics

(NEW YORK) — Former President Donald Trump’s remarks over the weekend that he would “encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to NATO allies that fail to meet defense spending guidelines have raised a lot of questions and drew rebuke from the White House and NATO’s leader.

“You don’t pay your bills, you get no protection. It’s very simple,” he said at a campaign event in Conway, South Carolina.

While multiple Republican senators backed Trump’s remarks, President Joe Biden called Trump’s comments “shocking” and “un-American,” adding that the commitment to NATO is “sacred.”

Trump’s comments put the safety of U.S. troops and their allies at risk, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in a statement.

The Republican presidential front-runner’s remarks raised questions about NATO’s guidelines on defense spendings and how much each ally country contributes to NATO’s military efforts.

NATO data show that almost all allies are expected to meet the defense spending guidelines in 2024 — contrary to Trump’s comments.

What is NATO and who are its members?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, is a political and military alliance formed in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II. Started with only 12 members, the alliance expanded to 31 nations and now includes European countries such as Turkey and Iceland, Canada and the U.S.

One of the prominent clauses of NATO’s treaty is Article 5, which deals with collective defense, which says that any attack on a member country is an attack on all of the countries in the alliance, according to its website. Article 5, which is not enforced automatically, but requires agreements from all allies, was invoked only once after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

How does NATO fund its defense?

NATO allies choose to contribute troops and funding to the alliance; how much each country would spend on its defense is voluntary. However, the nations set defense spending standards and guidelines for themselves to ensure the alliance’s military preparedness, according to NATO’s website.

NATO leaders pledged in 2014 to commit at least 2% of their gross domestic product to defense spending, in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and instabilities in the Middle East. The agreement was renewed in 2023, NATO said on its website.

These are not funds that countries would pay to NATO, but contributions to their own military budgets. The alliance doesn’t have its own army and its military protections are insured by member countries, according to NATO’s website.

In addition, the countries agree to dedicate 20% of the defense budget to equipment expenses, including research and development, to keep up with modernization in the military field, according to the funding section on NATO’s website.

Which NATO countries meet those guidelines?

Only 11 of the 31 nations were predicted to spend more than 2% of their GDP on defense in 2023, according to NATO estimates published in July. Almost a decade ago, only three countries met that mark.

Even more NATO countries are estimated to meet the 2% threshold in 2024. All European allies are expected to spend 2% of the GDP in 2024 for the first time ever, Stoltenberg said.

Ahead of a Thursday meeting between NATO defense ministers, Stoltenberg released the latest spending numbers, which he called an “unprecedented rise.”

“We are making real progress: European Allies are spending more,” he said in the release. “However, some Allies still have a ways to go.”

In addition to reaching the 2% threshold, all the NATO countries spent more than 20% of their estimated 2023 defense budgets on equipment, meeting that guideline from the 2014 agreement.

How much does the U.S. contribute to NATO’s defense?

The U.S. was estimated to spend 3.49% of its GDP in 2023 on defense, which is roughly $860 million. Poland comes in first with 3.9% — more than $29 million. The only other country estimated to pass the 3% mark was Greece, with more than $7 million.

The U.S. allocates almost twice as much of its GDP — $860 million — as European allies and Canada do together — roughly $404 million. The U.S. contribution makes up two thirds of the total NATO defense expenditures. This has been the case since the alliance was founded. U.S. defense spending also saw a major increase after the 9/11 attacks.

The other top contributors are Germany and the United Kingdom, with each making up more than 5% of total NATO defense spending. While the U.K has allocated more than 2% of its GDP in the last two decades to military spendings, Germany falls below the 2%.

 

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — New reporting about intelligence related to Russia wanting to put a nuclear weapon into space, possibly to use against satellites, raises key questions about the country’s intentions and the potential ramifications of an orbital detonation.

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 — signed by Russia, the U.S. and numerous other countries — technically still bans putting any weapons of mass destruction in outer space, including nuclear arms.

One question appears to be what Russia might be considering deploying that falls short of that ban.

At the same time, Russia has broken from other nuclear agreements: Russian President Vladimir Putin said early last year that the country was suspending its participation in the New START treaty, first signed in 2010 and extended in 2021, which implements caps on the number of nuclear weapons deployed by Russia and the U.S. and inspections of nuclear sites.

Russia, along with the U.S. and China, has also used missiles to destroy its own satellites before. The U.S. did so in 2008, with a ship-based interceptor missile, and Russia did it in 2021 to take out an aging satellite.

Space experts warn against using missiles to take out satellites because it creates voluminous debris in space that could hurt other key vessels like weather satellites and satellites powering communication networks.

But there’s another worry: Could a nuclear effect be triggered to paralyze a constellation of satellites, such as communications satellites?

“These systemic threats … merit further consideration,” notes one assessment from the nonprofit Center for Strategic and International Studies, which warned of digital vulnerabilities as well: “Cyberattacks against a constellation’s control systems or nuclear detonations in space could disable many satellites at once.”

The CSIS assessment noted, too, that a “growing density of space debris” was “an additional cause for concern, and one that is increasingly difficult to mitigate.”

Both the White House and lawmakers on Wednesday sought to allay public concerns about the intelligence regarding Russia — which first became public after House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner warned of a “national security threat” related to a “destabilizing foreign military capability.”

“We are going to work together to address this matter, as we do all sensitive matters that are classified,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon.

“But we just want to assure everyone steady hands are at the wheel,” he said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump reacted to Russian President Vladimir Putin saying he prefers President Joe Biden over Trump because Biden is “more experienced” and “more predictable,” is a “great compliment.”

“President Putin of Russia has just given me a great compliment, actually,” Trump said at a campaign rally in North Charleston, South Carolina, on Wednesday.

“He just said that he would much rather have Joe Biden as president than Trump,” he continued. “Now that’s a compliment. A lot of people said, ‘Oh, gee, that’s too bad.’ No, no, that’s a good thing. And of course, he would say that.”

The latest Trump comment comes on the heels of him recently saying at a previous rally in South Carolina that he’d “encourage” Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to foreign allies of the United States that don’t pay their “fair share” of defense funding — receiving backlash from some critics.

Trump’s latest comment was in response to Putin’s comments during an interview with a correspondent of Russian state television, in which he reportedly said he believes Biden getting reelected would be a better choice for Russia’s interest — though he added he will work with any U.S. leader.

At the North Charleston rally, Trump said it’s a given Putin would prefer Biden’s victory because he himself put a break on Russia’s interest while he was president, especially on the construction of Nord Stream 2, a controversial German-Russian pipeline, which would have carried natural gas from Russia to Europe.

“I stopped Nord Stream 2, and [Biden] approved it right after I left, so Putin is not a fan of mine actually,” Trump said, referring to his role as president in halting the construction of the pipeline by imposing sanctions on it, and Biden’s subsequent waiver of sanctions on the pipeline, which critics believed would give Russia an energy dominance over Europe.

“He doesn’t want to have me. He wants Biden because he’s going to be given everything he wants, including Ukraine,” Trump claimed of Putin and Biden’s relationship. “He’s gonna have his dream of getting Ukraine because of Biden … The only president in the last five that hasn’t given Russia anything is a president known as Donald J. Trump.”

On the campaign trail, Trump has repeatedly touted a good relationship with Putin, calling him “smart” and claiming if he had gotten reelected, the ongoing Ukraine-Russian war would not have happened.

But Trump has also recently taken some heat for suggesting he’d “encourage” Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies that don’t contribute their ”fair share” for NATO — a comment Trump’s allies say was a joke.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up, said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, Will you protect us?’” Trump said at a rally in South Carolina over the weekend. “I said, you didn’t pay, you’re delinquent … No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.”

At his rally in North Charleston on Wednesday, Trump doubled down on the idea of not protecting NATO allies that don’t pay their “fair share” but didn’t go as far as to say he’d “encourage” Russia to attack them.

“One of the heads of the country stood up and said, does that mean that if we don’t pay the bills, that you’re not going to protect us? I said, ‘That’s exactly what it means.’ I’m not going to protect you,” Trump said.

In response to Trump’s doubling down on his NATO comments at the North Charleston rally, South Carolina, the Biden-Harris campaign said he gave Putin the best Valentine’s Day present: permissions to “mow down” American allies.

“Donald Trump just gave Vladimir Putin the best possible Valentine’s Day present: his pinky-promise to give Putin the green light to mow down our allies in Europe if he’s elected president,” the campaign said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Special counsel Jack Smith filed a brief Wednesday urging the Supreme Court to deny former President Donald Trump’s request to stay his federal election subversion case from moving forward as Trump appeals his claim that he should be immune from prosecution.

In the filing, Smith requested if the Supreme Court does intend to hear Trump’s appeal that they grant the review now and go into an expedited briefing schedule that would have them issue their ruling during this term.

“The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy. A President’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law,” Smith’s team said in the filing.

“Applicant seeks a stay to prevent proceedings in the district court from moving towards trial, which the district court had scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024, before applicant’s interlocutory appeal necessitated postponement of that date. Applicant cannot show, as he must to merit a stay, a fair prospect of success in this Court,” the filing continued.

The Supreme Court had asked for the special counsel to file his response by the afternoon of Feb. 20.

After that filing, Trump’s legal team will get a chance to file a reply, after which the court can act on Trump’s request at any time, at its discretion.

Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election in August and is seeking the dismissal of the case on the grounds that he has “absolute immunity” from prosecution for actions taken while serving in the nation’s highest office.

Last week, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, clearing the way for Trump to seek to appeal the issue to the Supreme Court.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The White House said Wednesday it wants protecting democracy — not conspiracy theories — to be a key message heading into the general election, mentioning the recent conspiracy that alleged Taylor Swift was part of a psyop plot to help President Joe Biden win reelection.

Asked about the Taylor Swift conspiracy during the White House press briefing, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the White House is “always going to be concerned” about these types of conspiracy theories and the impact they can have, mentioning some voters’ belief that the 2020 election was stolen, which ultimately led to the Jan. 6 attacks at the U.S. Capitol.

“We have a concern about our democracy and where it’s going and protecting our democracy,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said.

Ahead of the Super Bowl, some Republicans circulated a baseless conspiracy that Swift — along with her boyfriend, Kansas City Chiefs star Travis Kelce — were part of a scheme to rig the Super Bowl and use the moment to endorse President Joe Biden in the 2024 contest. While the Chiefs did win the big game, neither Swift nor Kelce made a political endorsement.

“The Taylor Swift conspiracy, that’s for others to speak to. I’m not going to speak to that from here,” Jean-Pierre said.

This comes as a new national Monmouth University poll found that just under one in five Americans think that Swift is tied to an undercover government plot to help Biden win the 2024 election.

The poll, which was conducted from Feb. 8 to Feb. 12, called 902 U.S. adults to ask their thoughts on the pop star. Among the questions asked was, “Do you think that a covert government effort for Taylor Swift to help Joe Biden win the presidential election actually exists?”

Eighteen percent of respondents said they believe such a conspiracy involving Swift exists; 73% said that it does not exist. Nine percent said they didn’t know.

“The supposed Taylor Swift PsyOp conspiracy has legs among a decent number of Trump supporters. Even many who hadn’t heard about it before we polled them accept the idea as credible,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, in a release about the poll’s findings.

The poll also found that 68% of those Americans support Swift’s get-out-the-vote efforts among her fans. Twenty-five percent disapprove of those moves while 7% don’t know what to think of them.

Last year, Swift posted on her Instagram story urging her fans to register to vote. That led to a more than 35,000 bump in registrations and record-breaking traffic on the Vote.org website, the group’s CEO said.

The majority of Americans — 65% — said in the poll that they are not fans of Swift. Just 22% said they are fans and 6% said they are “Swifties” or super fans.

The polls has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percentage points.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Speaker Mike Johnson wants a one-on-one meeting with President Joe Biden to find a way forward to provide aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and border security, but those requests have been denied.

Johnson on Wednesday reiterated his call for a sit down with Biden, seeking to put the onus on the White House to more forcefully intervene as Congress remains at a standstill.

“I am going to continue to insist on that because there are very serious issues that need to be addressed and if the speaker of the House cannot meet with the president of the United States, that’s a problem,” Johnson said. “I don’t know why they’re uncomfortable having the president sit across the table from me, but I will go in good faith.”

The White House pushed back on Wednesday by pointing to Johnson’s shifting positions on how to deal with foreign aid and border security, and his rejection of two Senate deals on these issues that gained bipartisan support.

“What is there to negotiate, truly?” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce.

“What is the one-on-one negotiation about when he’s been presented with exactly what he asked for?” Jean-Pierre continued. “So, he’s negotiating with himself [and] he’s killing bills on his own.”

Johnson’s most recent meeting request was last week. Since the meeting at the White House with congressional leaders on Jan. 17, Johnson requested a one-on-one meeting on Jan. 22 and “multiple times” since, a source familiar the requests told ABC News.

All requests for a meeting between Biden and Johnson have been declined by the White House, according to the source.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., cast the rebuffs as proof of what Republicans say is Biden’s inattention to the southern border.

“The president cares about all these other things going on around the world, as we do too, but if you don’t care about one of the biggest crises facing our country to the point where the president won’t even sit down with the speaker of the House to talk about ways to solve this problem … we’re going to take this seriously as we have for months even if the president and his administration refuse to,” Scalise said.

The White House, expressing exasperation, said Johnson still appears to be negotiating with himself on what he wants to see happen.

In the fall, when Biden first requested supplemental funding to support Ukraine and Israel amid their respective conflicts, Johnson said he wanted to tie that money to changes in immigration policy.

For months, a group of bipartisan senators worked to hammer out a deal that they said would implement the most comprehensive immigration reforms in years. Even before the details of the deal were released, Johnson cast doubt on whether it would pass muster in the House. Shortly after the bill was unveiled, he deemed it “dead on arrival” in the House.

At the time, Johnson denied the characterization that he reversed course. He told ABC News Senior Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott that the legislation was a “nonstarter” because it didn’t contain, in his view, “real border security reform.”

The Senate then moved ahead with a standalone $95 billion foreign aid bill, which passed early Tuesday morning. Twenty-two Senate Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the measure.

Johnson said he was opposed to the stand-alone bill because it didn’t include any border changes.

“We are not going to be forced into action by the Senate who in the latest product they sent over doesn’t have one word about America’s security,” Johnson said Wednesday.

When pressed on what House Republicans are proposing now to find solutions on the border and aid for Ukraine, Johnson did not provide specifics.

“So, what we’re doing right now is the House is working its will, the House Republican conference — we just met an hour ago with all the members — and there are lots of ideas on the table of how to address these issues,” he told reporters. “We will address issues, we’ll do our duty on that matter and all that begins in earnest right now.”

Jean-Pierre pressed Johnson to bring the Senate foreign aid bill to the floor and was confident it would pass.

“I think the speaker’s confused,” Jean-Pierre said. “I think the speaker doesn’t understand what it is that his job is. Put that bill to the floor. Put that bill to the floor. It will get bipartisan support.”

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, joining Jean-Pierre at the White House podium on Wednesday, spoke about the urgent need for Ukraine aid as its fight against Russia’s invasion approaches its third year.

Asked how long Ukraine can continue to fight Vladimir Putin’s forces without this funding, Sullivan said he “can’t put a timetable on it,” but stressed inaction is costly.

“All I can say is that each passing day, each passing week, the cost of inaction from the United States that’s being borne on the front lines by brave Ukrainians is rising,” he said.

Jean-Pierre had sharper words for Republicans opposed to the aid, saying they are “siding with Putin.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Congressional House Ethics investigators have obtained text messages allegedly showing that a few months after first joining Congress, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz asked a young woman, who at the time had received payments for sex from Gaetz’s then-close friend Joel Greenberg, to join him and others on a three-day trip to the Florida Keys in May 2017, multiple sources tell ABC News.

In the alleged text messages described exclusively to ABC News, the then-freshman congressman appeared to message a woman, who ABC News is not identifying, asking if she would fly on a private plane to the Florida Keys for a trip with Gaetz, three other women, and one other man.

“Hey — any interest in flying on a private plane to the keys May 19-21?” Gaetz allegedly wrote to the woman, who was older than 21 at the time, according to multiple sources familiar with the messages.

Gaetz then allegedly said that the trip would feature “2 guys, 4 girls. A very high-quality adventurous group,” according to the messages, which have previously not been reported on.

“Yeah I’m in,” replied the woman, according to the texts.

Gaetz allegedly replied: “Fantastic. As is true with all time you spend w me, it’ll be fun and chill […] You have a passport?”

Sources familiar with the events tell ABC News the woman ultimately declined the 2017 trip.

The messages, if accurate, mark the first known example of alleged direct private communication between the Florida congressman and a woman who his one-time close associate Joel Greenberg told investigators he had been paying to have sex with other men, according to documents and interviews with multiple sources.

It’s unknown if Gaetz knew that Greenberg had allegedly been paying the woman in such a manner.

A spokesperson for Gaetz told ABC News, “Rep. Gaetz has no knowledge of these activities by Mr. Greenberg and was not involved in them. Rep. Gaetz has never paid for sex. Rep. Gaetz does not know anything about the woman you’re referencing, though he takes thousands of selfies each year.”

Members of the House Ethics Committee declined to comment to ABC News.

A photo of Gaetz and the woman has also been turned over to the committee, according to sources briefed on the matter. According to the sources, the photo, which is dated May 19, 2017, shows the woman smiling in a selfie next to Gaetz, who is wearing a shirt that reads, “If you think research is expensive, try disease,” a quote from health activist Mary W. Lasker.

According to bank and Venmo records reviewed by ABC News, the woman had previously received multiple payments from Greenberg, which multiple sources tell ABC News were for the woman to have sex at parties with Greenberg’s friends.

Greenberg, a former Seminole County tax collector, reached a deal with federal investigators in May 2021 in which he pleaded guilty to multiple federal crimes, including sex trafficking of a minor and introducing her to other “adult men” who also had sex with her when she was underage.

He was a top witness in the Justice Department’s yearslong investigation into allegations that Gaetz had engaged in sex trafficking the same minor who was the victim in the sex trafficking case to which Greenberg pleaded guilty. The probe concluded with the DOJ’s decision not to bring charges against Gaetz.

The House Ethics Committee opened its own probe into Gaetz in April 2021 but paused its investigation while the Justice Department completed its probe. The Ethics Committee then reopened its probe this past summer.

Gaetz has long denied all wrongdoing. The Florida congressman has blasted the Ethics Committee, saying its efforts are part of a plan by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to retaliate against Gaetz for helping remove McCarthy from his post late last year.

House investigators have recently ramped up their probe of Gaetz, which ABC News previously reported is looking into allegations that he paid for sex, as well as allegations about drug use and potential lobbying violations, according to sources familiar with the committee’s work. The DOJ examined related allegations in their yearslong probe before deciding not to bring charges.

Since the start of 2024, the Ethics Committee has contacted numerous witnesses, including Greenberg and the congressman’s ex-girlfriend.

Federal investigators previously sought answers about a separate trip in 2018 that Gaetz allegedly took to the Bahamas with women who Greenberg said he had been paying for sex, and were looking to determine if Gaetz was provided travel and entertainment in exchange for political favors, according to people familiar with the investigation. House investigators have conducted at least one interview with a witness who was allegedly part of that trip, sources tell ABC News.

It’s unclear if the text messages regarding the planned 2017 Florida Keys trip reported by ABC News were also scrutinized by federal investigators.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A day after former President Donald Trump filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices to stay last week’s appeals court decision that rejected his claim of absolute immunity from prosecution in special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case, the court on Tuesday asked the special counsel to respond within a week.

The Supreme Court asked for the special counsel to file his response by the afternoon of Feb. 20.

After that filing, Trump’s legal team will get a chance to file a reply, after which the court can act on Trump’s request at any time, at its discretion.

Trump, who in August pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election, is seeking the dismissal of the case on the grounds that he has “absolute immunity” from prosecution for actions taken while serving in the nation’s highest office.

Last week a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, clearing the way for Trump to seek to appeal the issue to the Supreme Court.

In Trump’s application to the Supreme Court, filed Monday, his attorneys argued that the high court should allow the appellate process to play out — and effectively delay any possible trial indefinitely — given the magnitude of the issues and the stakes for the upcoming presidential election.

Trump’s lawyers suggested that the former president intends to seek en banc review — done by the entire bench rather than a select panel — of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and, ultimately, Supreme Court review some time down the road.

“Allowing President Trump to pursue en banc review in the D.C. Circuit will provide an opportunity for similar thoughtful consideration in the lower court before this Court addresses the novel, complex, and momentous issues at stake in this appeal,” his attorneys wrote in the new filing.

In last week’s ruling, the appellate panel flatly dismissed Trump’s claims to legal immunity and said that affording him such protection “would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches.”

Trump’s trial had been scheduled to start on March 4 before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan postponed that start date while waiting for his immunity appeal to play out.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former Rep. Tom Suozzi will win back his old House seat in Tuesday’s special election in New York’s 3rd Congressional District, ABC News projects — extending his party’s largely winning record in such races and further whittling down Republicans’ tiny majority in the chamber.

Suozzi dispatched with Republican nominee Mazi Pilip to earn the seat, which encompasses parts of Long Island.

Their race was widely seen as offering the year’s first notable clues about how voters, particularly in the suburbs and in swing areas, are feeling about key political issues and about President Joe Biden and down-ballot Democrats heading into November’s general election.

At the same time, Tuesday was an off-schedule special election with relatively low turnout to replace disgraced Republican Rep. George Santos after his expulsion, and experts said the contest was shaped in part by local factors, likely limiting how much the results are indicative of voters across the country.

Here are five takeaways:

House Republicans’ precious little leeway shrinks again

Once Suozzi takes office, Republicans will be able to afford only two defections on any vote in the 219-213 House, assuming full attendance and no Democrats voting with the GOP.

Republicans have already struggled to unite on major legislation, from funding the government to Ukraine aid to impeachment.

That was underscored when the House last week initially failed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas because three Republicans voted against doing so and one Democrat returned from the hospital to vote the same day — an appearance that surprised Republicans.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, an unlikely chief who won the role just months ago after a historically dysfunctional leadership fight in his party, will now have even less wiggle room in making sure Republicans stick together to pass their key priorities in the remaining 11 months before a new Congress is sworn in.

Government funding deadlines are right around the corner.

Democrats’ winning streak continues

Democrats’ winning streak in special and off-year elections was continued Tuesday, another sign that the party is able to win elections even while being led by an unpopular president whose handling of issues like immigration and inflation is roundly disapproved of by the public.

Democratic hand-wringing about the future has reached a fever pitch in some corners given Biden’s dismal approval ratings, especially after special counsel Robert Hur’s report on the president’s handling of classified information while out of office also included multiple descriptions of his poor memory, which he denies.

However, even with those problems, Democrats have celebrated notable wins after wins since 2018 — including in recent special and off-year races under Biden, like last year’s gubernatorial and legislative races in Kentucky and Virginia, respectively, and in races for state legislative seats across the country to fill vacancies. (There have been glaring exceptions, like in Florida and New York.)

Even in many seats they lost, Democrats overperformed the partisan makeup in the districts.

Suozzi’s projected victory is the latest sign that the Democratic enthusiasm sparked by former President Donald Trump after 2016, which escalated after the scrapping of constitutional abortion protections in 2022, is alive and well heading into November — and members of both parties took note.

“Donald Trump lost again tonight. When Republicans run on Trump’s extreme agenda – even in a Republican-held seat – voters reject them,” Biden’s campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, said in a statement.

“Let’s just say the quiet part out loud. Donald Trump continues to be a huge weight against Republican candidates. Despite the enormous and obvious failings of Joe Biden, we just lost another winnable Republican House seat because voters overwhelmingly reject Donald Trump,” added Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and Trump’s lone remaining major primary challenger.

Trump, for his part, argued on social media that a “very foolish” Pilip, who is still a registered Democrat, had failed by not more fully embracing him and the MAGA movement.

Suozzi’s win was even sweeter for his party given Democrats’ relative wipeout in New York in 2022, when they unexpectedly lost out on House seats on Long Island and in the suburbs to New York City’s north — seats that will now be key to the fight for the House next year.

Still, Suozzi has warned his party that it has work to do with voters, indicating that he in part has run against Democrats’ national brand.

“I think my whole campaign is a warning sign for Democrats,” he told ABC News in an interview before Election Day. “I’ve always been somebody who has been battling with my own party. I’ve always been a centrist … and they asked me to run. Why? Because they know my message is what we need to be talking about.”

Campaigning and recruitment matter

Democrats appeared to learn their lesson from the 2022 New York races.

Suozzi’s seat was open after he waged a failed bid for governor and the GOP elevated Santos, an unknown quantity who won by about 7.5% in a year that favored New York Republicans amid worries over crime and inflation.

Robert Zimmerman was Democrats’ nominee and he ultimately lost a seat that Biden had won handily in 2020.

This year, Democrats went after Suozzi again. He represented the district in Congress for three terms and served in local office before that — an established track record that he used to set himself apart from the image of national Democrats, particularly on immigration.

Pilip, meanwhile, came in with an impressive background as an Ethiopian-born Jew who served in Israel’s military, but her stances on policy were murky, which Suozzi seized on given her lower profile compared to him.

On top of that, Suozzi blitzed the district with events, while his campaign and outside groups swarmed the airways with ads both supporting him and knocking Pilip. Republicans couldn’t keep up with Democrats’ spending, and Pilip’s campaign schedule was unusually lighter than Suozzi’s.

Israel isn’t necessarily an election sinker for Democrats

Some Democrats have worried that Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war could hurt his electoral prospects this year, given the outcry from younger and progressive voters that he should focus more on Palestinian civilian casualties as Israel bombards Gaza.

Protesters who have been critical of his backing of Israel have repeatedly appeared at his events, while Republicans use any utterance of criticism of Jerusalem to cast the president as insufficiently supportive of the longtime U.S. ally.

Biden has tried to strike a balance between backing the campaign against Hamas and urging more caution from Israel’s military, while Israel insists it takes steps to avoid civilians amid the high death toll.

Tuesday’s race on Long Island isn’t a perfect microcosm for how the issue will play out this year — the district boasts a hefty Jewish population and skews more in support of Israel.

The war was also more notable in the special election given Pilip’s background and the fact that one of the hostages taken by Hamas during its Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel is from the district.

Suozzi came out in strong support of Israel’s response, which has drawn pushback from Biden as “over the top,” saying he didn’t support conditions on aid to Israel, a key demand of many of Biden’s more liberal detractors.

Hope for Democrats on crime, immigration?

Democrats in New York were dogged by concerns over crime and immigration in 2022, and the latter issue has been especially elevated in recent months with New York City receiving thousands of migrants and asylum-seekers sent north from the southern border.

Pilip campaigned by tying Suozzi to the White House’s border policies, which Suozzi rejected, saying he wanted a bipartisan deal on the issue while tightening security.

It could be tough for other candidates to replicate his playbook, given that Long Island has a unique political identity, as 538 details. But Suozzi found electoral success as a more moderate Democrat by taking clear stances on immigration reform and crime.

He established a tough-on-crime reputation throughout the campaign, and he repeatedly knocked Pilip for opposing a bipartisan immigration bill in the Senate, arguing she stood in opposition to the legislation while offering no alternatives herself.

“Crime and immigration and taxes is not a Republican message. It’s an American message,” Suozzi told ABC News. “And Democrats as well as Republicans need to be addressing these issues.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Republican-led House on Tuesday night narrowly impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over what they claim is his failure to enforce border laws amid a “crisis” of high illegal immigration, allegations he denies as “baseless.”

The historic move — only the second Cabinet impeachment since the country’s founding, after William Belknap in 1876 — has been criticized by some Republicans and many Democrats as based on policy disagreements, not accusations of specific crimes. Conservatives have also sought to paint Mayorkas as incompetent.

The impeachment articles are expected to be rejected by the Senate’s Democratic majority.

The House GOP tried and failed last week to impeach Mayorkas on the same accusations.

In a statement after Tuesday’s vote, Speaker Mike Johnson blamed Mayorkas for “fueling the worst border catastrophe in American history.”

“[He] deserves to be impeached, and Congress has a constitutional obligation to do so,” Johnson said. “Next to a declaration of war, impeachment is arguably the most serious authority given to the House and we have treated this matter accordingly.”

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson shot back in a statement that “without a shred of evidence or legitimate Constitutional grounds, and despite bipartisan opposition, House Republicans have falsely smeared a dedicated public servant who has spent more than 20 years enforcing our laws and serving our country.”

“Secretary Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security will continue working every day to keep Americans safe,” the spokesperson said.

The articles of impeachment against Mayorkas passed on Tuesday 214-213, with the majority made up of only Republicans and three Republicans voting with Democrats against impeachment.

Two Democrats representatives, Judy Chu and Lois Frankel, and Republican Reps. Brian Mast and Maria Salazar did not vote.

Reps. Ken Buck, Mike Gallagher and Tom McClintock — the same three Republicans who opposed a previous attempt to impeachment Mayorkas last week — kept their opposition.

Mayorkas will now face a trial in the Democratic-controlled Senate, where a two-thirds majority vote will be needed to convict and remove him from office, which is very unlikely.

The chamber’s majority leader, Chuck Schumer, on Tuesday night labeled the impeachment a “sham,” echoing how Democrats say Republicans have seized on Mayorkas to go after President Joe Biden’s border policies and spotlight immigration.

Polling shows the public broadly disapproves of Biden’s handling of the issue.

The president criticized Tuesday’s vote in a statement, saying in part, “History will not look kindly on House Republicans for their blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship.”

The Senate is on a two-week recess, returning Feb. 26.

“The House impeachment managers will present the articles of impeachment to the Senate following the state work period. Senators will be sworn in as jurors in the trial the next day. Senate President Pro Tempore Patty Murray will preside,” Schumer’s office said.

Republicans accuse Mayorkas of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust” amid a surge in unauthorized migrant crossings, according to the articles of impeachment against him.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, a Tennessee Republican who led the impeachment investigation, has cited Mayorkas discussing “operational control” of the U.S. border, which Congress previously defined as zero illegal crossings.

As Mayorkas has pointed out, under this definition, no administration has achieved operational control. At a previous congressional hearing, Mayorkas said he believed there was a form of operational control and said he was not following the definition outlined in the dated statute.

Green, however, has contended Mayorkas’ conduct is disqualifying regardless if it is criminal: “The founders designed impeachment not just to remove officials engaged in criminal behavior, but those guilty of such gross incompetence that their conduct had endangered their fellow Americans, betrayed the public trust and represented a neglect of duty.”

Lauding the successful impeachment vote on Tuesday, Green said in a statement: “Our country has suffered from an unprecedented border crisis that has turned every state into a border state, causing untold suffering in communities across our country. With this vote, Congress has made clear that we will not tolerate such lawlessness.”

Critics of the impeachment push, including Rep. Buck of Colorado, have said the articles don’t show specific crimes or wrongdoing and instead reflect a political dispute with the Biden administration.

“This administration has removed, returned, or expelled more migrants in three years than the prior Administration did in four years,” the DHS said in a memo circulated ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

The previous attempt to impeach Mayorkas surprisingly failed last week after the three Republicans voted against it along with all Democrats present.

That marked a major defeat for Speaker Johnson and other House GOP leaders.

“Last night was a setback, but democracy is messy,” Johnson told reporters the next day on Capitol Hill, seeking to soften the losses. “We live in a time of divided government. We have a razor-thin margin here, and every vote counts.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise then returned to Washington after blood cancer treatment to help his party’s narrow majority in the second vote, on Tuesday.

Scalise’s office had said in a statement on Thursday that he “successfully completed his autologous stem cell treatment and has been medically cleared to resume travel.”

The Louisiana Republican is in “complete remission,” his office said then.

On NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Mayorkas maintained that the flood of migrants at the border has been a problem for years and that legislative action is needed to fix the system.

In December, there were 302,000 encounters along the southwest border — the highest monthly total ever recorded.

Kristen Welker pressed Mayorkas on whether he bears the responsibility for the flood of migrants crossing the border — something President Biden has also called a “crisis.”

“It certainly is a crisis, and, well, we don’t bear responsibility for a broken system and we’re doing a tremendous amount within that broken system,” Mayorkas said. “But, fundamentally, fundamentally, Congress is the only one who can fix that.”

Last week, the Senate’s vote to advance a bipartisan foreign aid bill with major new border provisions failed — a blow to the negotiators who worked for months with Mayorkas to develop the border deal. Johnson and other notable GOP critics of the agreement argued it was insufficient.

“The system has not been fixed for 30 years,” Mayorkas said on NBC. “A bipartisan group of senators have now presented us with the tools and resources we need … and yet, Congress killed it before even reading it.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.