Politics

(TALLAHASSEE, Fla.) — When CJ Walden heard the news that some Florida classrooms would limit LGBTQ topics under a proposed bill in the state legislature, first he felt shock. Then, the pain set in.

“This bill will lead to more pain, depression and suicide and self-harm,” CJ told ABC News. He is the vice president of Florida-based youth LGBTQ activism group PRISM. “To make students have to hide who they really are will just make our schooling experience more challenging for them.”

Stories and histories about people like CJ — a gay, 17-year-old boy — would not be allowed to be taught in classrooms from kindergarten to third grade if the legislation, dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, is implemented, limiting classroom curriculum on sexual orientation and gender identity.

“They won’t know who they are, they won’t be able to express themselves,” CJ said about students in classrooms where these lessons are banned.

So, many LGBTQ students, including CJ, are fighting back with protests, letter-writing campaigns and confrontations with the lawmakers themselves.

Maxx Fenning, the 19-year-old president of PRISM who attends the University of Florida, went to Tallahassee, the state capital, with a group of students from South Florida to speak to legislators about the damage they say this bill will cause.

“I really think this sends a message to students, to staff, to our community, that there is something wrong with being gay or that is something that is too taboo to be discussed and that we are something that should be in the shadows,” Fenning said. “That is so dehumanizing. That’s so demeaning.”

Rep. Joe Harding, who introduced the bill, told ABC News podcast “Start Here” that teachers and students can still discuss sexual orientation and gender identity in their classrooms, there just can’t be a curriculum or lessons on it.

The Gender Sexuality Alliance in CJ’s South Florida school is organizing a letter-writing campaign to spell out the ways in which they believe this bill would be harmful.

“Me and my other fellow GSA members did feel a little powerless when we first heard about this bill,” CJ said.

“Lawmakers need to know that this is not a game that they are playing, they are going to be causing severe, severe consequences if this bill passes,” CJ said, referring to the higher rates of mental illness, suicide and substance abuse issues LGBTQ youth face due to harassment, isolation and victimization, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Across the state, students of all ages are also taking to the streets in protest of this law. Students from the University of Florida and St. Johns County schools and protesters from the LGBTQ education advocacy group Safe Schools South Florida have already marched and rallied in protest, according to local reports from ABC affiliate WCJB and the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

LGBTQ activist groups across the state, including the ACLU of Florida, plan to continue fighting. It is helping critics of the bill send letters to local legislators in protest.

“The government should never have the power to censor and control classroom and school discussions,” the organization said in a statement against the bill. “Yet, the leadership of the state legislature is fast-tracking an anti-LGBTQ+ bill that would do just that.”

Activists have likened the bill to a gag order or to the “No Promo Homo” laws of the 1990s that barred educators from discussing queer topics in schools.

While the bill would ban lessons concerning gender or sexual orientation in classrooms from kindergarten to third grade, it would also not allow them when it is age-inappropriate or not in line with state standards.

However, standards on gender and sexual identity have yet to be carved out, according to Harding.

The legislation allows parents to sue schools or teachers that teach on these topics.

The bill passed the state House of Representatives on Thursday. It has not yet passed the state Senate or been approved by the governor.

Harding said he wants parents to be involved in the decision-making of these discussions.

“Families are families. Let the families be families, and the school district doesn’t need to insert themselves at that point when children are still learning how to read and do basic math,” he told “Start Here.”

But LGBTQ youth activists say representation and inclusion can help students feel accepted — or learn to be accepting — from a young age.

“Regardless of whether this bill passes or not, gay kids and trans kids are still going to be in schools, are still going to be experiencing being gay and being trans,” Fenning said. “The only difference is that they’re not going to be able to talk about it.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — “Stand your ground laws,” have proliferated around the country after they were first introduced in Florida in 2005, with proponents contending that they’ve kept neighborhoods safer.

A study released this week, however, has found that those laws, which give gun holders the right to use their weapon in public in self-defense are actually associated with an increase in firearms homicides.

The peer-reviewed report issued by the JAMA Network Open found that the monthly gun homicide rate rose 8-11% in 23 states after they enacted the laws, amounting to roughly 58 to 72 additional homicides a month in these locations.

The increase in homicides was greatest in southern states that first passed the legislation — Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Missouri — ranging from 16.2% to 33.5% after the laws were passed according to the study.

“There was no evidence that [stand your ground] laws were associated with decreases in homicide or firearm homicide,” the report said. But the report did find that some states, including Arizona and Texas, did not have any significant increases in homicides after the laws were passed.

Researchers did not provide any conclusion as to why the “stand your ground” laws were associated with the rise in killings. The report cautioned that “stand your ground” laws alone may not be sufficient to explain the increase and said other factors, such as other firearms laws, had to be considered.

A gun control advocate who has been analyzing shooting data contended the laws have motivated some to act like vigilantes.

Sarah Burd-Sharps, director of research for the non-profit group Everytown for Gun Safety, told ABC News the laws have emboldened some gun owners to shoot first and ask questions later, because they think they are criminally immune during a conflict.

“We’ve seen it time and time again. They encourage people to continue aggression even in situations where violence is avoidable,” she told ABC News.

The report looked at public health data on deaths from 41 states, 23 of which enacted “stand your ground” laws between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2016. The data showed that during that period there were 129,831 firearm homicides in the “stand your ground” states while there were 40,828 recorded in the other states.

States that passed “stand your ground” laws saw their monthly gun homicide rates jump from 0.36 per 100,000 to 0.39 after the laws were enacted, the study said. In the states that didn’t have “stand your ground” laws, the firearm homicide rate was 0.19 per 100,000 people, according to the data.

The report found that the monthly firearm homicide rate grew from 1.03 per 100,000 to 1.12 per 100,000 for victims who were minorities in “stand your ground” states after the laws were enacted. By comparison, the monthly gun homicide rate for white victims remained level at 0.2 per 100,000 people after the laws were enacted in those states, the report said.

The study’s authors were not immediately available for comment.

Burd-Sharps said some gun owners have used “stand your ground” to justify their biases against minorities or certain communities. She cited the shootings of Trayvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery, both of whom were unarmed Black men who were shot by perpetrators claiming they were breaking the law, as examples.

Martin was shot in Florida 10 years ago while Arbery was shot in Georgia two years ago. Both states have “stand your ground” laws and there is no duty by a gun holder to retreat.

“‘Stand your ground’ laws allow people to shoot people who they perceive a threat,” Burd-Sharps said.

Some lawmakers have contended that “stand your ground” laws supplement existing self-defense laws and provide law-abiding gun owners with an option in dire circumstances, such as a mugging.

“In these situations, you don’t always have time to decide if you could safely retreat or not,” said Arkansas state Rep. Aaron Pilkington, when presenting a bill that passed last year that would allow an armed person to use deadly force if they believe they are in imminent danger.

Burd-Sharps said that most Americans don’t realize that traditional self-defense laws are pretty comprehensive and have prevented unnecessary shootings for years.

“[Self-defense law] includes the use of deadly force but that is only as a last resort. You have the right to walk away,” she said. “When you teach kids how to respond in times of conflict, one of the things you teach is how to walk away. That’s critical for adults as well.”

Following the report’s release, Everytown announced Thursday that it created a task force of state and federal leaders who are looking to repeal and modify existing stand your ground laws. The task force, which has 20 members from 19 states, will also work to prevent the passage of bills that mimic current “shoot first,” laws, according to Everytown’s founder Shannon Watts.

“We must reframe the debate,” she said during a news conference Thursday.

ABC News’ Kiara Alfonseca contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Amid pressure at home and abroad, the White House announced Friday that the U.S. will personally sanction Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, following in the footsteps of a European Union move to freeze their assets, as the West puts on a united front in the face of Russian aggression.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at an afternoon press briefing that President Joe Biden would join European allies, including the United Kingdom, in ordering direct sanctions on “President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov and members of the national security team” and said to expect more details later in the day.

Earlier Friday, Biden called a desperate but defiant President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as Russian forces closed in on Ukraine’s capital Kyiv and after he publicly pleaded with U.S. and European nations to do more to help, including imposing more sanctions.

Zelenskyy also called on Putin to negotiate, but Putin showed no interest in a diplomatic solution.

He appeared, instead, to call for a coup in Ukraine in a statement Friday, calling on Ukraine’s military to turn on Zelenskyy, who was elected democratically, and terming his government a “gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis that has settled in Kyiv and taken hostage the entire Ukrainian people.”

In an address to his people Friday morning, Zelenskyy called on Putin “to sit at the table for negotiations to stop people dying,” but did not order Ukrainian troops to stop fighting, telling them to “stand tough. You’re everything we have, you’re everything that is defending us.”

Lavrov said Friday that Russia will begin negotiations again once the “democratic order is restored” in Ukraine, suggesting that only once it has forced Ukraine’s government to surrender and conceded to demands, will it negotiate, with the Kremlin claiming Zelenskyy wants to discuss Ukraine’s “neutrality.”

Russia had demanded Ukraine agree to never join NATO before Putin invaded, which Zelenskyy would not agree to, though Zelenskyy wasn’t seemingly close called to NATO membership, at one point calling it a “dream” for Ukraine.

On Russia’s demand that Ukraine be barred from joining NATO, White House press secretary Jen Psaki has said repeatedly that “that is a decision for NATO to make.”

State Department spokesman Ned Price on Friday dismissed Russian talk of negotiations.

“Now, we see Moscow suggesting that diplomacy take place at the barrel of a gun, or as Moscow’s rockets, mortars, artillery, target the Ukrainian people. This is not real diplomacy. Those are not the conditions for real diplomacy,” he said. “If President Putin is serious about diplomacy, he knows what he can do. He should immediately stop the bombing campaign against civilians, order the withdrawal of his forces from Ukraine, and indicate very clearly — unambiguously to the world, that Moscow is prepared to de-escalate. We have not seen that yet.”

As Russian troops got ever closer to the capital, the Ukrainian president reportedly told European leaders in a call Thursday night, “This may be the last time you see me alive.”

“We have information the enemy as defined me as number one target and my family as a number two target,” he said in a video address to the nation Friday. “They want to destroy Ukraine politically by destroying the head of state.”

“I will stay in the capital,” Zelenskyy added. “My family is also in Ukraine.”

Even as Zelenskyy pleaded with Western allies to do more to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia’s attack, now in its second day, Biden has emphasized that sanctions on Russia will take time to have an impact, but he faced continuing questions as to why not sanction the Russian leader now.

Thousands of Ukrainians forced to flee their homes appear to be running out of time as Russian forces advance on the capital city Kyiv, and U.S. officials express concerns that Kyiv could fall to Russia within days.

Zelenskyy had urged allies including the U.S. to enact sanctions before Russia invaded, lamenting last week that the “system is slow and failing us time and again, because of arrogance and irresponsibility of countries on a global level” — but that, largely, did not happen.

The Biden administration, at first, said that its sanctions were meant to deter war, and once triggered, the deterrent effect would be lost — but under questioning from ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Cecilia Vega Thursday, who noted that “sanctions clearly have not been enough to deter Vladimir Putin to this point,” Biden replied, “No one expected the sanctions to prevent anything from happening.”

However, Vice President Kamala Harris said on CBS Sunday that “the purpose of the sanctions has always been and continues to be deterrence,” echoing language from Secretary of State Antony Blinken, national security adviser Jake Sullivan and several other administration officials over several weeks — in sharp contrast to Biden’s claim.

The White House official in charge of crafting the sanctions against Russia, Daleep Singh, playing a kind of clean-up Thursday evening, said that the sanctions were never meant to deter war and laid out multiple reasons why the administration didn’t move preemptively.

“Had we unleashed our entire package of financial sanctions preemptively,” he said, “President Putin might have said, ‘Look, these people are not serious about diplomacy, they’re not engaging in a good faith effort to promote peace. Instead, they’re escalating.’ And that could provide a justification for him to escalate and invade.”

“Secondly, he could look at it as a sum cost. In other words, President Putin could think I’ve already paid the price, why don’t I take what I paid for, which is Ukraine’s freedom. So that’s what we wanted to avoid,” Singh added.

But even Democratic lawmakers are calling on Biden to do more to sanction Russia.

“There is more that we can and should do,” said Sen. Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Congress and the Biden administration must not shy away from any options—including sanctioning the Russian Central Bank, removing Russian banks from the SWIFT [international banking] system, crippling Russia’s key industries, sanctioning Putin personally, and taking all steps to deprive Putin and his inner circle of their assets.”

Even with Biden set to sanction Putin on Friday, there are still major questions about what more the U.S. and Europe can do to not only punish Russia and Putin, but whether any of the sanctions can change his calculus — or make him retreat from the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

ABC News’ Luis Martinez, Patrick Reevell, Molly Nagle and Shannon Crawford contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Friday nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for the U.S. Supreme Court, elevating an African American woman for the first time to a seat on the high court bench.

At a formal White House ceremony Friday afternoon, Biden said, “it is my honor to introduce to the country a daughter of former public school teachers, a proven consensus builder, an accomplished lawyer, a distinguished jurist, one of the most — on one of the nation’s most prestigious courts.”

“For too long our government, our courts haven’t looked like America,” he said.”And I believe it is time that we have a court that reflects the full talents and greatness of our nation with a nominee of extraordinary qualifications.”

Jackson, in turn, said she was “truly humbled” by “the extraordinary honor” and gave credit to “the grace of God” and her parents for bringing her to this historic moment.

At age 51, Jackson currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to which she was named by Biden and confirmed by the Senate last year with Republican support. The president called Jackson late Thursday to inform her of the decision, a source familiar with the conversation said.

Her nomination fulfills a promise Biden made during the 2020 presidential campaign ahead of the South Carolina primary when he relied heavily on support from the state’s Black voters.

It’s also the first opportunity for Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to help shape a Court that has grown sharply more conservative in recent years, even if his appointment will not alter the current ideological balance.

Jackson, a former clerk to retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, has more than eight years experience on the federal bench, following a path through the judiciary traveled by many nominees before her.

All but four justices appointed in the last 50 years have come from a federal appeals court, including three current justices – Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Clarence Thomas – from the D.C. Circuit.

Born in D.C. but raised in Miami, Jackson comes from an elite legal pedigree as a graduate of Harvard Law School but also has experience representing everyday Americans in the legal system as a federal public defender.

“Public service is a core value in my family,” Judge Jackson testified last year.

She would be the first federal public defender to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court and the first justice since Thurgood Marshall to have criminal defense experience.

Jackson has been vetted and confirmed by the Senate three times – twice for appointments to the federal bench, a third time for a seat on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Not since Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated in 1991 has a Supreme Court candidate been scrutinized by the Senate as many times.

“I think she’s qualified for the job. She has a different philosophy than I do, but it’s been that way the whole time,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said of Jackson last year. He was one of three GOP Senators, including Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who voted to confirm Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

President Biden has long admired, respected and helped elevate Jackson, sources say. It was the Obama-Biden administration that first appointed her to the federal bench in 2013. Last year, Biden met one-on-one with Jackson at the White House before nominating her to the D.C. Circuit. The two met again in recent days, sources said.

The president is impressed by her “experience in roles at all levels of the justice system, her character and her legal brilliance,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates said this month.

Jackson has won praise from grassroots progressive, civil rights and legal groups, particularly for her work as vice chair of the bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission between 2010 and 2014, when she played a key role in major criminal justice reforms.

Jackson joined a unanimous vote to reduce federal sentencing guidelines for some nonviolent drug offenders and make the changes retroactive – moves backed by members of both parties.

“In my view, that of a civil rights lawyer and advocate who is committed to bringing justice, respect, and fairness to this nation, and particularly to my community, that woman is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson,” civil rights attorney Ben Crump told ABC News.

On the bench, her jurisprudence has widely been considered mainstream and measured, legal scholars say. She authored 600 opinions while on the U.S. District Court for D.C.; only 12 were reversed, according to data compiled by the Alliance for Justice, a progressive legal advocacy group.

One of her most high-profile decisions came in the 2019 case of former White House Counsel Don McGahn, who was contesting a congressional subpoena for testimony. Then-District Court Judge Jackson wrote a 118-page ruling ordering McGahn to testify, concluding that “presidents are not kings” and could not assert universal executive privilege over former aides.

Earlier this month, Judge Jackson published her first appeals court opinion – a unanimous decision in favor of a large union of federal government workers contesting new federal labor guidelines that would have made collective bargaining more difficult. Jackson concluded the changes were “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Late last year, Judge Jackson joined a unanimous appeals court panel decision rejecting former President Donald Trump’s attempt to shield his records from review by the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. The decision recently affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jackson’s former colleagues and associates describe her approach as “Breyer-esque,” qualities Biden has explicitly sought to replicate on the bench: moderate, pragmatic, and a consensus-builder.

“She believes the judiciary should be accessible and transparent,” said Sanchi Khare, who clerked for Judge Jackson in 2019. “She really feels that people who come to the court or who interact with the judicial system, whether they are civil or criminal parties, that they feel heard and that the court is considering their arguments.”

Rachel Barkow, an NYU law professor, former Harvard classmate of Jackson and former member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, predicted Jackson could help “dial down the temperature” around the Court if confirmed.

“She is not someone who is a firebrand off on her own, creating and doing new things which I don’t think she should be doing as a lower court judge,” Barkow told ABC. “I think she absolutely on the merits should be a person who appeals to people of all political stripes.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said this week that the nominee will be “respectfully treated and thoroughly vetted.” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Sunday that his party will not engage in “personal slime attacks” but will scrutinize the candidate’s record.

Democrats have the votes to confirm Jackson without Republican support, but President Biden has said he hopes to win over some members of the other party.

During her appeals court confirmation hearing last year, Republicans questioned Jackson on issues of race; ties to progressive legal groups; her rulings against the Trump administration; the impact of sentencing reductions; and her work as a public defender for Guantanamo detainees.

She could also face questions about her affiliation with Harvard University – both as an alumna and member Board of Overseers – ahead of a major lawsuit challenging the school’s use of race-based Affirmative Action in admissions that will be heard by the Supreme Court later this year.

The president’s allies on Capitol Hill and among Democratic grassroots groups have begun mobilizing to promote and defend the nominee, gearing up for a media blitz to mark both the historic nature of the nomination and counter expected Republican attacks, some of which have already been racially-charged.

The White House is expected to highlight Jackson’s personal story as the embodiment of the American Dream.

“Her Miami roots will afford her valuable perspective on the rights and lives of the people who come before the court,” members of the Cuban American Bar Association wrote in a letter to the president this month.

Jackson attended Miami-Dade public schools. Her mother was a public high school principal in the county, while her father was a teacher and later county school board attorney. Her younger brother – her only sibling – served in the military and did tours in combat. Two uncles have been law enforcement officers.

Her husband, Patrick Jackson, is a surgeon in the Washington, D.C., area, where together they have raised two daughters.

“It’s a story of someone who’s always been very hard working, who has not had things handed to her, who has worked for all the things that she’s achieved,” Barkow said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Amid an international crisis demanding his attention, President Joe Biden still took time out Friday to introduce to the nation his first high court nominee — Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson — at the White House, officially following through on his campaign promise made two years ago to the day to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court of the United States.

“Today as we watch freedom and liberty under attack abroad, I’m here to fulfill my responsibilities under the Constitution to preserve freedom and liberty here in the United States of America,” Biden began. “And it is my honor to introduce to the country a daughter of former public school teachers, a proven consensus builder, an accomplished lawyer, a distinguished jurist.”

Jackson, 51, currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to which she was named by Biden and confirmed by the Senate last year with the support of three Republican senators — the third instance in which was confirmed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis.

Biden was flanked by Jackson and Vice President Kamala Harris — the highest-ranking Black woman in government — for the historic announcement.

“I’m pleased to nominate Judge Jackson, who will bring extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect, and a rigorous traditional record to the court. Judge Jackson deserves to be confirmed,” he said.

“For too long our government, our courts haven’t looked like America. And I believe it is time that we have a court that reflects the full talents and greatness of our nation with a nominee of extraordinary qualifications. And that we inspire all young people to believe that they can one day serve their country at the highest level,” Biden continued.

A former clerk to retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, Jackson has more than eight years experience on the federal bench, following a path through the judiciary traveled by many nominees before her. If confirmed, she would be the first federal public defender to serve on the Supreme Court and the first justice since Thurgood Marshall to have criminal defense experience.

“During this process, I looked for someone who, like Justice Breyer, has a pragmatic understanding that the law must work for the American people,” Biden said. “I’ve admired these traits of pragmatism, historical perspective, wisdom, character in the jurists nominated by Republican presidents as well as Democratic presidents. And today, I’m pleased to introduce to the American people a candidate who continues in this great tradition.”

As the president pitched his nominee to the public for the first time, he also spoke to her personal side, saying Jackson’s parents grew up under segregation, “but never gave up hope that their children would enjoy the true promise of America.”

He said Jackson was a “star student” who fell in love with a law career while watching her own father going to law school at the University of Miami, often drawing on coloring books at the dining room table next to her father’s homework. Jackson went on to attend Harvard Law School herself, despite some cautioning her against setting her sights too high.

Biden said she doesn’t put “her thumb on the scale of justice one way or the another — but she understands the broader impact of the decisions, whether there’s cases addressing the rights of workers or government service, she cares about making sure that our democracy works for the American people.”

“She listens. She looks people in the eye, lawyers, defendants, victims and families. And she strives to ensure that everyone understands why she made a decision, what the law is and what it means to them,” he continued. “She strives to be fair, to get it right, to do justice.”

Jackson appeared at the White House with her husband, Patrick, a surgeon, and one of her daughters, Leila, for the formal announcement and her debut under the presidential spotlight.

“I am truly humbled by the extraordinary honor of this nomination,” Jackson said. “And I am especially grateful for the care that you have taken in discharging your constitutional duty in service of our democracy, with all that is going on in the world today.”

“My life has been blessed beyond measure and I do know that one can only come this far by faith. Among my many blessings, the very first is the fact that I was born in this great country. The United States of America is the greatest beacon of hope and democracy the world has ever known,” she continued.

Jackson also took the opportunity to give a special thanks to Breyer in her remarks, saying that he “not only gave me the greatest job that any young lawyer could ever hope to have, he exemplified every day in every way that Supreme Court Justice can perform at the highest level of skill and integrity, by also being guided by civility and pragmatism and generosity of spirit.”

“Justice Breyer, the members of the Senate will decide if I fill your seat. But please know that I could never fill your shoes,” she added.

She finished by turning to the glass ceiling she is shattering, giving thanks to those who paved the way for her, including Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman ever to be appointed as a federal judge.

“Today, I proudly stand on Judge Motley’s shoulders, sharing not only her birthday, but also her steadfast and courageous commitment to equal justice under law,” she said. “And if I’m fortunate enough to be confirmed as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, I could only hope that my life and career, my love of this country and the Constitution and my commitment to upholding the rule of law and the sacred principles upon which this great nation was founded, will inspire future generations of Americans.”

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer, Sarah Kolinovsky and Molly Nagle contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden called a desperate but defiant President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday as Russian forces closed in on Ukraine’s capital Kyiv and after he publicly pleaded with U.S. and European nations to do more to help.

Zelenskyy also called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate, but Putin showed no interest in a diplomatic solution.

He appeared, instead, to call for a coup in Ukraine in a statement Friday, calling on Ukraine’s military to turn on Zelenskyy, who was elected democratically, and terming his government a “gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis that has settled in Kyiv and taken hostage the entire Ukrainian people.”

In an address to his people Friday morning, Zelenskyy called on Putin “to sit at the table for negotiations to stop people dying,” but did not order Ukrainian troops to stop fighting, telling them to “stand tough. You’re everything we have, you’re everything that is defending us.”

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Friday that Russia will begin negotiations again once the “democratic order is restored” in Ukraine, suggesting that only once it has forced Ukraine’s government to surrender and conceded to demands, will it negotiate, with the Kremlin claiming Zelenskyy wants to discuss Ukraine’s “neutrality.”

Russia had demanded Ukraine agree to never join NATO before Putin invaded, which Zelenskyy would not agree to, though Zelenskyy wasn’t seemingly close called to NATO membership, at one point calling it a “dream” for Ukraine.

On Russia’s demand that Ukraine be barred from joining NATO, White House press secretary Jen Psaki has said repeatedly that “that is a decision for NATO to make.”

As Russian troops got ever closer to the capital, the Ukrainian president reportedly told European leaders in a call Thursday night, “This may be the last time you see me alive.”

“We have information the enemy as defined me as number one target and my family as a number two target,” he said in a video address to the nation Friday. “They want to destroy Ukraine politically by destroying the head of state.”

“I will stay in the capital,” Zelenskyy added. “My family is also in Ukraine.”

Even as Zelenskyy pleaded with Western allies to do more to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia’s attack, now in its second day, Biden has emphasized that sanctions on Russia will take time to have an impact, but he faced continuing questions as to why not sanction the Russian leader now.

Thousands of Ukrainians forced to flee their homes appear to be running out of time as Russian forces advance on the capital city Kyiv, and U.S. officials express concerns that Kyiv could fall to Russia within days.

Zelenskyy had urged allies including the U.S. to enact sanctions before Russia invaded, lamenting last week that the “system is slow and failing us time and again, because of arrogance and irresponsibility of countries on a global level” — but that, largely, did not happen.

The Biden administration, at first, said that its sanctions were meant to deter war, and once triggered, the deterrent effect would be lost — but under questioning from ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Cecilia Vega Thursday, who noted that “sanctions clearly have not been enough to deter Vladimir Putin to this point,” Biden replied, “No one expected the sanctions to prevent anything from happening.”

However, Vice President Kamala Harris said on CBS Sunday that “the purpose of the sanctions has always been and continues to be deterrence,” echoing language from Secretary of State Antony Blinken, national security adviser Jake Sullivan and several other administration officials over several weeks — in sharp contrast to Biden’s claim.

The White House official in charge of crafting the sanctions against Russia, Daleep Singh, playing a kind of clean-up Thursday evening, said that the sanctions were never meant to deter war and laid out multiple reasons why the administration didn’t move preemptively.

“Had we unleashed our entire package of financial sanctions preemptively,” he said, “President Putin might have said, ‘Look, these people are not serious about diplomacy, they’re not engaging in a good faith effort to promote peace. Instead, they’re escalating.’ And that could provide a justification for him to escalate and invade.”

“Secondly, he could look at it as a sum cost. In other words, President Putin could think I’ve already paid the price, why don’t I take what I paid for, which is Ukraine’s freedom. So that’s what we wanted to avoid,” Singh added.

But even Democratic lawmakers are calling on Biden to do more to sanction Russia.

“There is more that we can and should do,” said Sen. Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Congress and the Biden administration must not shy away from any options—including sanctioning the Russian Central Bank, removing Russian banks from the SWIFT [international banking] system, crippling Russia’s key industries, sanctioning Putin personally, and taking all steps to deprive Putin and his inner circle of their assets.”

Even if Biden did sanction Putin as he’s said is “on the table,” there are still major questions about what more the U.S. and Europe can do to not only punish Russia and Putin, but whether any of the sanctions can change his calculus — or make him retreat from the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

ABC News’ Luis Martinez, Patrick Reevell and Molly Nagle contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden is expected to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, elevating an African American woman for the first time to a seat on the high court bench, ABC News has learned.

Judge Jackson, 51, currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to which she was named by Biden and confirmed by the Senate last year with Republican support.

Her historic nomination fulfills a promise Biden made during the 2020 presidential campaign ahead of the South Carolina primary when he relied heavily on support from the state’s Black voters.

It’s also the first opportunity for Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to help shape a Court that has grown sharply more conservative in recent years, even if his appointment will not alter the current ideological balance.

Jackson, a former clerk to retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, has more than eight years experience on the federal bench, following a path through the judiciary traveled by many nominees before her.

All but four justices appointed in the last 50 years have come from a federal appeals court, including three current justices — Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Clarence Thomas — from the D.C. Circuit.

Born in D.C. but raised in Miami, Jackson comes from an elite legal pedigree as a graduate of Harvard Law School but also has experience representing everyday Americans in the legal system as a federal public defender.

“Public service is a core value in my family,” Judge Jackson testified last year.

She would be the first federal public defender to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court and the first justice since Thurgood Marshall to have criminal defense experience.

Jackson has been vetted and confirmed by the Senate three times – twice for appointments to the federal bench, a third time for a seat on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Not since Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated in 1991 has a Supreme Court candidate been scrutinized by the Senate as many times.

“I think she’s qualified for the job. She has a different philosophy than I do, but it’s been that way the whole time,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said of Jackson last year. He was one of three GOP Senators, including Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who voted to confirm Jackson to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

President Biden has long admired, respected and helped elevate Jackson, sources say. It was the Obama-Biden administration that first appointed her to the federal bench in 2013. Last year, Biden met one-on-one with Jackson at the White House before nominating her to the D.C. Circuit. The two met again in recent days, sources said.

The president is impressed by her “experience in roles at all levels of the justice system, her character and her legal brilliance,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates said this month.

Jackson has won praise from grassroots progressive, civil rights and legal groups, particularly for her work as vice chair of the bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission between 2010 and 2014, when she played a key role in major criminal justice reforms.

Jackson joined a unanimous vote to reduce federal sentencing guidelines for some nonviolent drug offenders and make the changes retroactive — moves backed by members of both parties.

“In my view, that of a civil rights lawyer and advocate who is committed to bringing justice, respect, and fairness to this nation, and particularly to my community, that woman is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson,” civil rights attorney Ben Crump told ABC News.

On the bench, her jurisprudence has widely been considered mainstream and measured, legal scholars say. She authored 600 opinions while on the U.S. District Court for D.C.; only 12 were reversed, according to data compiled by the Alliance for Justice, a progressive legal advocacy group.

One of her most high-profile decisions came in the 2019 case of former White House Counsel Don McGahn, who was contesting a congressional subpoena for testimony. Then-District Court Judge Jackson wrote a 118-page ruling ordering McGahn to testify, concluding that “presidents are not kings” and could not assert universal executive privilege over former aides.

Earlier this month, Judge Jackson published her first appeals court opinion — a unanimous decision in favor of a large union of federal government workers contesting new federal labor guidelines that would have made collective bargaining more difficult. Jackson concluded the changes were “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Late last year, Judge Jackson joined a unanimous appeals court panel decision rejecting former President Donald Trump’s attempt to shield his records from review by the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. The decision recently affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jackson’s former colleagues and associates describe her approach as “Breyer-esque,” qualities Biden has explicitly sought to replicate on the bench: moderate, pragmatic, and a consensus-builder.

“She believes the judiciary should be accessible and transparent,” said Sanchi Khare, who clerked for Judge Jackson in 2019. “She really feels that people who come to the court or who interact with the judicial system, whether they are civil or criminal parties, that they feel heard and that the court is considering their arguments.”

Rachel Barkow, an NYU law professor, former Harvard classmate of Jackson and former member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, predicted Jackson could help “dial down the temperature” around the Court if confirmed.

“She is not someone who is a firebrand off on her own, creating and doing new things which I don’t think she should be doing as a lower court judge,” Barkow told ABC. “I think she absolutely on the merits should be a person who appeals to people of all political stripes.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said this week that the nominee will be “respectfully treated and thoroughly vetted.” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Sunday that his party will not engage in “personal slime attacks” but will scrutinize the candidate’s record.

Democrats have the votes to confirm Jackson without Republican support, but President Biden has said he hopes to win over some members of the other party.

During her appeals court confirmation hearing last year, Republicans questioned Jackson on issues of race; ties to progressive legal groups; her rulings against the Trump administration; the impact of sentencing reductions; and her work as a public defender for Guantanamo detainees.

She could also face questions about her affiliation with Harvard University – both as an alumna and member Board of Overseers – ahead of a major lawsuit challenging the school’s use of race-based Affirmative Action in admissions that will be heard by the Supreme Court later this year.

The president’s allies on Capitol Hill and among Democratic grassroots groups have begun mobilizing to promote and defend the nominee, gearing up for a media blitz to mark both the historic nature of the nomination and counter expected Republican attacks, some of which have already been racially-charged.

The White House is expected to highlight Jackson’s personal story as the embodiment of the American Dream.

“Her Miami roots will afford her valuable perspective on the rights and lives of the people who come before the court,” members of the Cuban American Bar Association wrote in a letter to the president this month.

Jackson attended Miami-Dade public schools. Her mother was a public high school principal in the county, while her father was a teacher and later county school board attorney. Her younger brother — her only sibling — served in the military and did tours in combat. Two uncles have been law enforcement officers.

Her husband, Patrick Jackson, is a surgeon in the Washington, D.C., area, where together they have raised two daughters.

“It’s a story of someone who’s always been very hard working, who has not had things handed to her, who has worked for all the things that she’s achieved,” Barkow said.

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

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden will attend an emergency NATO summit Friday morning from the White House Situation Room to coordinate next steps with Western allies as Russian President Vladimir Putin wages a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Biden said in an address Thursday that NATO would meet to “affirm our solidarity and to map out the next steps we will take to further strengthen all aspects of our NATO alliance.”

He also announced escalated sanctions to correspond with the escalated Russian aggression, but not the full economic punishment Ukraine and others have called for and none yet on Putin himself, although he did say that option was “not a bluff. It’s on the table.”

“He has much larger ambitions than Ukraine,” Biden warned of the Russian leader. “He wants to, in fact, re-establish the former Soviet Union. That’s what this is about. And I think that his ambitions are completely contrary to the place where the rest of the world has arrived.”

Pressed on why the U.S. hasn’t gone further with sanctions, Biden said that some decisions must be made in unison with European allies — signaling more sanctions may follow Friday’s meeting of NATO’s 30 member countries.

“The sanctions that we are proposing on all their banks have the equal consequence, maybe more consequence than SWIFT, number one. Number two, it is always an option but right now that’s not the position that the rest of Europe wishes to take,” Biden said, referring to an international messaging system that allows large financial institutions to send money to each other.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is set to offer public opening remarks on Friday and hold a news conference at the conclusion of the meeting, both of which will be live-streamed on ABC News Live.

Biden reiterated on Thursday that U.S. troops would not be involved in the fight against Russia in Ukraine, but he did announce that he will deploy more forces to Germany, including some of the 8,500 troops in the U.S. that have been on a “heightened alert,” and said he is open to sending additional troops elsewhere in Europe.

“Our forces are not going to Europe to fight in Ukraine but to defend our NATO allies and reassure those allies in the East,” Biden said. “As I made crystal clear, the United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power.”

Throughout the crisis, Biden has maintained U.S. involvement is about fulfilling a responsibility to defend NATO allies — and democracy around the world.

“America stands up to bullies,” Biden said Thursday. “We stand up for freedom. This is who we are.”

ABC News’ Luis Martinez contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House Oversight and Reform Committee on Friday expanded its investigation into former President Donald Trump’s White House records, requesting new information from the National Archives about the classified materials Trump took to his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida after leaving office — as well as those records Trump is alleged to have ripped up in the White House.

In a new letter to National Archivist David Ferriero, committee chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., requested a “detailed” inventory of the 15 boxes of White House records the National Archives retrieved from Mar-a-Lago, as well as “all presidential records” that the agency discovered Trump had “torn up, destroyed, mutilated, or attempted to tear up, destroy, or mutilate” while in office.

“I am deeply concerned that former President Trump may have violated the law through his intentional efforts to remove and destroy records that belong to the American people,” Rep. Maloney wrote in a letter obtained by ABC News. “This Committee plans to get to the bottom of what happened and assess whether further action is needed to prevent the destruction of additional presidential records and recover those records that are still missing.”

The National Archives previously informed Maloney that some of the Trump White House documents the former president took to Florida were marked classified, and that the agency had notified the Justice Department of the matter.

The Justice Department has not said whether it has opened a formal investigation into the referral from the Archives. At a news conference on Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the department would “look at the facts and the law” in evaluating the documents.

In her letter Friday, Maloney also requested any documents or records related to White House employees or contractors “finding paper in a toilet in the White House” and the president’s residence — a reference to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman’s reporting that White House staff believed Trump periodically flushed papers down the toilet to dispose of them.

Trump has denied that he destroyed any documents, and has further denied any misconduct regarding the documents that were retrieved from Florida by the National Archives and Records Administration.

“The media’s characterization of my relationship with NARA is Fake News. It was exactly the opposite!” Trump said in a statement to ABC News. “It was a great honor to work with NARA to help formally preserve the Trump Legacy.”

More broadly, the Oversight committee on Friday signaled plans to investigate the Trump White House’s handling of the Presidential Records Act and its enforcement in the West Wing, after the National Archives informed Congress that some social media records were not preserved, and that some staff used non-official electronic messaging accounts for official business.

The committee’s probe is on a parallel track to the investigation being carried out by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Shortly after President Joe Biden on Thursday announced new sanctions on Russian banks and elites — but not on Russian President Vladimir Putin himself — a top Senate Democrat pointedly called on him to go further.

“As we seek to impose maximum costs on Putin, there is more that we can and should do. Congress and the Biden administration must not shy away from any options—including sanctioning the Russian Central Bank, removing Russian banks from the SWIFT [international banking] system, crippling Russia’s key industries, sanctioning Putin personally, and taking all steps to deprive Putin and his inner circle of their assets,” Sen. Bob Menendez, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged the administration in a statement.

The Democratic chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Adam Schiff, told reporters Thursday that he, too, would support removing Russia from the SWIFT banking system as many Republicans have called for as tensions worsened.

“We must provide Ukraine with support to defend itself. We also are going to need to, I think, dramatically escalate the sanctions that we place on Russia for this act of naked aggression by the Kremlin dictator. We need to move, I think, to sanction the largest banks in Russia, we have to cut off Russia from the International financing system and its ability to access Western capital. We need to attack its ability to gather sophisticated technology for its weapons systems,” Schiff told reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday.

Asked why SWIFT was not included in his announcement, Biden argued the actions the U.S. had taken Thursday were more significant, but said it was an option that remained on the table, although allies hadn’t agreed on making the move.

“It’s always an option but right now that’s not the position that the rest of Europe wishes to take,” Biden told reporters Thursday during remarks in the East Room of the White House.

Biden briefed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the evolving situation in Ukraine during a phone call Thursday afternoon.

McConnell described it as “a briefing from the president for the four of us on the events of today and the way forward” but declined to share further details. He noted that he urged the president, both publicly and privately, to “ratchet up the sanctions.”

A spokesman to Pelosi confirmed to ABC News that the call was “classified” in nature.

Across the board, Republicans and Democrats in both chambers of Congress say the administration must act boldly and with more urgency to punish Putin and Russian oligarchs as the deadly attack in Ukraine unfolds.

And while many Republicans have been critical of Biden’s steps up to this point, the actual invasion attack has seen many joining with Democrats in calls to sideline partisan squabbling in the name of NATO unity.

While agreeing to do so, Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, couldn’t resist seizing an “I told you so” moment. In a statement released just moments after news of Russia’s advancement into Ukraine broke Wednesday evening. Romney harkened back to his 2012 presidential debate with President Barack Obama, who mocked Romney for citing Russia as the United States’ “number one geopolitical foe.”

At the time, Obama quipped on stage that “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

Ten years later, Romney argued that Putin’s prior aggression laid the groundwork for the current conflict he’s waging in Ukraine. “The ’80s called’ and we didn’t answer,” he said.

Still, the statement ended on a unifying note, calling on America and its allies to “protect freedom” by working in tandem to impose harsh sanctions on Russia.

Many GOP lawmakers are modeling Romney’s tone, calling for unity despite disagreement with the administration.

In a statement Thursday, following Biden’s remarks, McConnell acknowledged Romney’s consistent warnings about Ukraine, but like Romney, looked ahead.

“Moving forward, how America leads the response from all freedom-loving nations will be measured carefully by our friends, by our adversaries, and by history itself,” McConnell said. “We cannot afford to fail this test.”

Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee also released a statement early Thursday going after Putin. Earlier in the week, they had been more critical of Biden.

“The last few hours have laid bare for the world to witness the true evil that is Vladimir Putin. Today, we stand resolute with the Ukrainian people and resolve to provide them with the tools they need to withstand and repel this unprovoked attack. Every drop of Ukrainian and Russian blood spilled in this conflict is on Putin’s hands, and his alone,” the Republican members said.

GOP divided on attacking Biden

But some Republicans are choosing a more divisive rhetoric, largely unseen in previous international conflicts.

Among a newer breed of Republicans, many of whom have found themselves closely aligned with former President Donald Trump, criticism is extending beyond Putin and to Biden himself.

The third-ranking House Republican, Rep. Elise Stefanik, slammed Biden in a statement Thursday.

“After just one year of a weak, feckless, and unfit President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, the world is less safe. Rather than peace through strength, we are witnessing Joe Biden’s foreign policy of war through weakness. For the past year, our adversaries around the world have been assessing and measuring Joe Biden’s leadership on the world stage, and he has abysmally failed on every metric,” Stefanik said.

It was only later in her statement, Stefanik turned her ire to Putin, saying “Vladimir Putin is a war criminal and deranged thug.”

“Joe Biden has shown nothing but weakness and indecision,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said in a tweet Wednesday night. “Now is the time to show strong purpose.”

GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene blamed the Russian invasion of Ukraine entirely on Biden himself, while giving kudos to his predecessor.

“Everything happening to the poor people of Ukraine is a direct result of a WEAK America under the WEAK leadership of Joe Biden. Under President Trump, America was STRONG and the world was at PEACE,” Greene tweeted Thursday.

Top Senate Democrat Schumer said that this sort of political rhetoric from Republicans attacking Biden at this moment in time, “weakens the attempts we are making to be unified against Putin.”

“That is not the time for this rhetoric,” Schumer said. “Americans should be united as we were united at 9/11, as we have been united in the past.”

House Republican Leader McCarthy released a statement Thursday going after Putin — this time not choosing to level his attacks at the sitting U.S. president, which he often does.

“Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is reckless and evil. The United States stands with the people of Ukraine and prays for their safety and resolve. Putin’s actions must be met with serious consequence. This act of war is intended to rewrite history and more concerning, upend the balance of power in Europe. Putin must be held accountable for his actions,” McCarthy said in a statement.

While Republicans have condemned Putin, one major player in the Republican Party has refused to do so — the former president of the United States.

He called Putin’s actions “genius” during a radio interview Tuesday.

“I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So Putin is now saying it’s independent, a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper,” Trump said on the “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show.”

At a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser Wednesday, he continued his praise of Putin, calling him “pretty smart” in “taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions.”

How will Congress respond to Russia?

Whether and how to further punish Russia and supply aid for Ukraine will be some of the first challenges Congress will have to attend to when it returns from its week-long recess on Monday.

They say they are united in their resolve.

“Our Congress is united that we will reply to this with both standing firm by NATO continuing to provide armaments to the Ukrainians to defend itself,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., said Thursday. “We will launch the most unprecedented level of economic sanctions targeting oligarchs, people close to Putin, the banking system, the ability to get technology into the Russian defense industry.”

But differences in policy will be laid bare when members return next week and it’s not yet clear if Congress will act separately from the administration to impose additional sanctions.

Negotiations on a bipartisan sanctions bill stalled last week, and Republicans, led by the Foreign Relations Committee top Republican Jim Risch, proposed a separate partisan bill they still hope will go forward.

“Diplomacy has failed. Those of us who called for more definitive action from the Biden Administration and our allies have unfortunately been proven right,” Risch said Thursday. “We cannot afford to wait any longer, we must take more decisive action.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.