(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Thursday pointed to robust job growth and low unemployment that should, he argued, quell growing concerns of a financial downturn after it was announced that the economy contracted for a second consecutive quarter — meeting a common but unofficial definition for a recession.
Biden opened a meeting of business leaders in Washington by insisting the economy was still strong despite the back-to-back quarters of negative growth and that some contraction was expected after strong growth last year as the country emerged from the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Our job market remains historically strong. Our economy created more than 9 million jobs since I came to office, in no small part because of the people on this stage. Our economy created more than 1 million jobs in the second quarter, the same period as today’s GDP report covers, and our unemployment rate is 3.6% — near a record, historic low. Secondly, households and businesses, the engines of our economy, continue to move forward,” Biden said.
“Now, there’s no doubt we expect growth to be slower than last year and the rapid clip we had. But that’s consistent with the transition to a steady, stable growth and lower inflation,” he said, acknowledging that “there’s going to be a lot of chatter today on Wall Street and among pundits about whether we are in a recession.” Republicans, too, were quick to seize on the continued declines.
“But if you look at our job market, consumer spending, business investment, we see signs of economic progress in the second quarter as well,” Biden said.
His defensive campaign comes as Republicans continue to hammer him on historically high inflation, which they linked to the slowdown.
“This is Joe Biden’s recession. Biden can lie and deflect blame all he wants, but that will not alleviate the pain Americans feel every time they fill up their gas tanks, go grocery shopping, check their retirement savings, or balance their budgets. Biden and Democrats are responsible for our shrinking economy, and they’re only trying to make it worse,” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement.
The administration has ramped up a messaging effort to convince the public that the country has not entered a recession, noting that the U.S. has added 2.7 million jobs this year and consumer spending has continued to rise despite biting inflation, which the Federal Reserve aims to cool through interest rate hikes without setting off broader economic shockwaves.
Biden on Thursday also touted two pieces of legislation making their way through Congress that he says will relieve inflationary pressures.
During his meeting, the House passed the CHIPS and Science Act, which will provide an infusion of funds for the domestic chip manufacturing industry. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., also announced a deal on Wednesday on legislation that would lower prescription drug costs, fight climate change and implement a 15% minimum tax on corporations.
“Both of these bills are going to help the economy continue to grow, bring down inflation and make sure we aren’t giving up on all the significant progress we made in the last year,” Biden said.
(WASHINGTON) — As former President Donald Trump continues to push false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, his political action committee has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to organizations and candidates that are pushing to tighten voting laws or spread unproven claims of election fraud, new FEC filings show.
Among the donations is a $150,000 payment to a little-known organization, Secure MI Vote, that’s spearheading a petition to clamp down on voting requirements in the state of Michigan, which Trump lost in 2020 after winning the state in 2016.
The group’s director says the donation from Trump’s Save America PAC has been a big help.
“It definitely helped us get the word out and then cover some of the expenses,” executive director Jeff Litten told ABC News. “It’s not cheap.”
The payment comes amid a flurry of big-dollar donations from Trump’s PAC to like-minded groups working to lay the groundwork for voting reform before the 2024 election.
“America needs safe and secure elections,” Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich told ABC News. “That’s why Save America is investing in organizations, causes, and candidates committed to election integrity.”
Earlier this year, before the Michigan donation, ABC News reported that Trump’s PAC gave $1 million to a right-wing nonprofit organization run by some of his close allies that has been hosting “Election Integrity Summits” around the country. At one of those summits, Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who was involved with Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election, urged attendees to recruit and create election “task forces” in their communities ahead of the upcoming midterms, to avoid a repeat of the last election.
“Imagine if we had had local task forces in these counties? What if we had citizens like you in 2020, overseeing this?” Mitchell said at the private summit, which ABC News attended by purchasing a ticket.
“We could have stopped it,” Mitchell told the crowd. “That’s why we’re doing what we’re doing here tonight.”
In Michigan, the Secure MI Vote petition looks to tighten restrictions on voter ID laws, registration requirements, and mail-in ballot procedures in a way that experts say would make it more difficult to vote. Michigan law already requires an ID to vote in elections, but the petition would eliminate a provision that allows those without IDs to vote through a sworn affidavit.
“It’s a proposal that would curtail voting access for Michiganders and is part of a larger effort to slice away voting rights from every angle,” said Jasleen Singh, the counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit bipartisan public policy institute.
For months, Trump himself has zeroed in on voter ID laws as a rallying cry to spread baseless accusations of fraud in the 2020 election, despite no evidence of malfeasance.
“They want no voter ID,” Trump said to a group of students during a student summit in Tampa, Florida, on Saturday. “Could it be because they want to cheat in elections?”
According to a study from the Brennan Center, “overly burdensome” ID requirements make it more difficult to vote, especially for minority and low-income populations. The group found that as many as 11% of eligible voters “do not have the kind of ID that is required by states with strict ID requirements.”
But Jamie Roe, the spokesperson for Secure MI Vote, said the Michigan group’s petition would require state-funded IDs to be provided to “applicants with hardships.” Suggestions that the petition was going to take away voting rights were “absolutely nonsense,” Roe told ABC News.
“What right are we taking away?” Roe asked. “If you don’t have an ID or can’t afford one, we’re going to get you one.”
According to a copy of the document available on the group’s website, the petition also seeks to prohibit election officials from sending out unsolicited applications for mail-in ballots — a step officials took ahead of the 2020 presidential election that helped contribute to the highest voter turnout the state has ever seen.
“There’s a reason why there are so many different kinds of restrictions, and that’s to affect all different kinds of voters,” said Nancy Wang, executive director of the pro-voter group Voters Not Politicians. “In Michigan, the margins are so close, so if you even affect 2,000 votes, then you can turn the tide on an entire election.”
Litten says the Secure MI Vote petition has over 500,000 signatures — far beyond the 340,000 required for certification. After the group missed the June 1 deadline to get on the November ballot, Litten says they’re now ready to submit the petition to the state this Friday.
If the petition is approved, the group hopes that by next year they’ll get it before the GOP-controlled legislature, which by law has the power to adopt the petition and pass it into law without approval from the state’s Democratic governor, who has previously vetoed similar legislation.
“We think it would find a favorable response from the Michigan legislature,” Roe said during a June 1 press conference.
Beyond the $150,000 donation from Trump’s Save America PAC, Secure MI Vote’s operation is largely funded by other conservative groups that do not disclose their donors.
Virginia-based advocacy group Liberty Initiative Fund has given Secure MI Vote more than $2.4 million worth of in-kind donations for services including “petitioning,” “auditing petitions,” and “media consulting,” while the newly launched Michigan-based dark money group Michigan Guardians of Democracy has given more than $2.1 million in both monetary contributions and in-kind contributions for services like “signature contact,” according to filings.
Elsewhere, Trump’s PAC has been pouring money into supporting other organizations that spread unproven election fraud claims and support like-minded candidates.
In Pennsylvania, Save America donated $1 million apiece to two super PACs, Our American Century and American Leadership Action, that helped secure a win in the GOP Senate primary for Trump-endorsed candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz, who supported Trump’s claims of a stolen election.
In an upcoming GOP House primary in Wyoming, Save America PAC gave half a million dollars to the Wyoming Values super PAC supporting Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman against Rep. Liz Cheney, who has become a target of Trump and his allies over her role leading the House investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. Throughout her campaign, Hageman has continued to spread unsubstantiated claims about the 2020 election, including during a GOP primary debate earlier this month.
Trump’s PAC has also homed in on Georgia over the last few months, funneling millions of dollars into super PACs attempting to unseat Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who testified this week in the Fulton County grand jury investigation into Trump’s actions after the 2020 election.
Get Georgia Right, a super PAC that received a $1.5 million donation from Save America back in November, has been airing political ads opposing Kemp that claim without evidence that “widespread illegal ballot harvesting continued” during the 2020 election, even though the incumbent Georgia governor “dismissed concerns about voter fraud.”
Another group, Take Back Georgia, which received more than $2.8 million from Save America PAC over the last few months, supported former Georgia Sen. David Perdue and his false claims about “rigged elections” in Perdue’s unsuccessful primary challenge against Kemp.
And even after Perdue lost the GOP primary in May, Save America contributed another $146,000 to Take Back Georgia so the group could continue its Trump-aligned efforts in the state through the general election season.
Representatives for Get Georgia Right, American Leadership Action, Our American Century, and Wyoming Values did not immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment. Officials with Take Back Georgia were not reachable.
(WASHINGTON) — Just 10 days into his congressional career, Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer broke with his party and voted with nine other Republicans and every Democrat in the House to impeach President Donald Trump over the Capitol riot.
Now, just days before his primary, Meijer is under pressure from a major Democratic group, which is spending $500,000 to spotlight John Gibbs, his pro-Trump, election-denying opponent.
Airing in Western Michigan this week, the 30-second ad from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), House Democrats’ campaign wing, describes Gibbs, who worked in the Trump administration, as “too conservative” for the region and Trump’s “hand-picked” candidate.
While the DCCC’s messaging is negative, the ad pulls focus from Meijer and underscores Gibbs’ conservative credentials shortly before voters have their say.
At a time when Democrats are warning voters that election-denying Republicans pose an existential threat to democracy, the party’s role in a messy GOP primary has left multiple Democratic lawmakers angry and frustrated.
“There’s always a danger of unintended consequences, and I certainly would have taken a different approach,” Colorado Rep. Jason Crow told ABC News on Wednesday. “We should play our game on our terms, and I don’t think approaches like that are usually productive.”
“I thought it was a strange choice, and I called [the DCCC] and let them know,” Michigan Rep. Elisa Slotkin told ABC News.
Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., a retiring moderate who also voted to impeach Trump, called the Democratic strategy “outrageous” and pointed to Meijer’s votes across party lines on impeachment and to protect same-sex marriage rights.
“Peter’s been a strong independent voice, and he’s put the country first on a number of issues,” Upton told ABC News. “He’s not a rubber stamp.”
New York Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the chairman of the DCCC, defended the party’s efforts on Wednesday. He argued that the ad was “telling the truth about John Gibbs being a dangerous extremist” and that Democratic candidate Hillary Scholten — who will face either Gibbs or Meijer — would “put people over politics” if elected to serve in the House.
In a brief interview in Washington on Wednesday, Meijer accused Democrats of putting “party interest” first.
“Everything they’re saying in the Jan. 6 committee, everything about how my party is a threat to democracy — and they are investing a half-million dollars to elevate and boost exactly the same thing that they’re railing against?” he said.
“It’s pretty galling in the hypocrisy of it all. And just shameless given their high-minded rhetoric about how they are the party of democracy. Spare me that bull—,” Meijer said.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., a retiring member of the House Jan. 6 committee, called the strategy “disgusting” in an interview with CNN, warning that it would help “election deniers win.”
Gibbs, who served in the Department of Housing and Urban Development under Trump, was unsuccessfully nominated to lead the Office of Personnel Management but faced criticism in the Senate over past comments and tweets, including speaking dismissively of Islam and promoting a conspiracy theory involving Democrats. (Gibbs said at the time that “I don’t really see anything to apologize for. I was a commentator.” At his confirmation hearing, he insisted, “In my service in the government … I’ve always treated people fairly.”)
Democrats aren’t just focusing on the right-wing candidate in Meijer’s race. The party has tried to influence GOP primaries across the country — where nominating more conservative options could create more favorable matchups in November and maintain their slim House and Senate majorities.
In California, an outside political group affiliated with House Democratic leaders tried spotlighting a pro-Trump Republican running against Rep. David Valadao, another one of the 10 GOP members who voted to impeach Trump. (Valadao survived his primary two weeks ago and advanced to the general election through California’s top-two system.)
In Colorado, the Democratic leadership-aligned Senate Majority PAC spent millions ahead of the primary last month to portray Joe O’Dea, a Republican seeking to unseat Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, as a moderate compared to the more conservative Ron Hanks — which was ultimately unsuccessful. O’Dea said Democrats were “propping up Ron Hanks in a desperate attempt to save” Bennet in November.
And Democrats in Pennsylvania, ahead of the state’s GOP primary in early June, elevated Doug Mastriano, who was linked to Trump’s effort to challenge the 2020 election and the Capitol attack. (Mastriano was at the Capitol that day but insists he left because of the violence.) He will face Democratic state Attorney General Josh Shapiro in November.
Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., tweeted this week that he was “disgusted” that the DCCC has been using its funds — including membership dues paid by lawmakers — to “boost Trump-endorsed candidates, particularly the far-right opponent of one of the most honorable Republicans in Congress.”
Helen Kalla, a spokesperson for the DCCC, told ABC News the group was “laser focused on holding the House majority, which we will accomplish by fighting for every competitive seat.”
“[Minority Leader] Kevin McCarthy is an anti-choice insurrectionist coddler and conspiracy enabler, and we will do what it takes to keep the speaker’s gavel out of his hands,” Kalla said.
(WASHINGTON) — Following a surprise announcement Wednesday that he and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin struck a deal on a major spending package — reviving Democrats’ hopes of addressing health care and climate — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer met with his caucus behind closed doors on Thursday morning.
Schumer urged fellow Democrats to stay united to get the Inflation Reduction Act across the finish line via reconciliation before the chamber breaks next week for their August recess. The proposal would expand health care subsidies; allow Medicare to negotiate on prescription drugs; spend nearly $400 billion on climate and energy policies and raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy.
“It will require us to stick together and work long days and nights for the next 10 days,” Schumer said, according to a Democrat in the room. “We will need to be disciplined in our messaging and focus. It will be hard. But I believe we can get this done.”
Democrats’ proposed climate, tax and health care bill had been in limbo after Manchin, one of the most conservative Democrats in the 50-50 Senate, said earlier this month that he was opposed to additional spending on climate policies or tax changes as the country faces historically high inflation.
But in an apparent reversal, Manchin said Wednesday that he and Schumer had reached an agreement after “months of negotiation.”
President Joe Biden applauded their “historic agreement” in remarks delivered at the White House on Thursday, despite the fact that it doesn’t include everything he’s called for in such a package. (At several trillion dollars, Biden’s original American Families Plan was a far more sweeping social spending proposal.)
Biden said Manchin and Schumer’s agreement was also major.
“Simply put, the bill will lower health care costs for millions of Americans and it will be the most important investment — not a hyperbole — the most important investment that we’ve ever made in our energy security,” he said.
If passed, the spending package would be a notable victory for Biden and Democrats heading into the fall midterm elections.
But Manchin said Thursday that Biden had little to do with the deal, telling a local radio show that it was only hammered out between him and Schumer.
“President Biden was not involved,” Manchin said. “I was not going to bring the president in. I didn’t think it was fair to bring him in. And this thing could very well could not have happened at all. It could have absolutely gone sideways.”
Biden on Thursday thanked Schumer and Manchin specifically for the “extraordinary effort that it took to reach this result.”
What’s in the bill?
The 725-page bill, as currently written, would invest approximately $300 billion in deficit reduction and $369.75 billion in energy security and climate change programs over the next decade.
According to Schumer and Manchin, the bill “lowers energy costs, increases cleaner production, and reduces carbon emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030.”
There are incentives for Americans to invest in clean energy, with tax incentives for energy efficiency improvements for their homes. There are also tax credits for individuals who buy electric vehicles.
The bill would continue pandemic-era expansions to Affordable Care Act subsidies through 2025 and allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to lower drug costs, which has long been a Democratic goal. Under the bill, drug manufacturers would be penalized for raising prices faster than inflation.
Medicare drug negotiation would begin in 2026 with 10 of the most expensive drugs eligible for negotiation. That number would increase to 15 drugs in 2027 and to 20 drugs by 2029.
The Inflation Reduction Act would be paid for implementing a 15% corporate minimum tax as well as collecting more through IRS tax enforcement, Democrats said. The legislation includes billions of dollars for taxpayer services, enforcement and modernization of the agency.
Manchin on how the deal came together
Manchin was pressed by West Virginia radio host Hoppy Kercheval on Thursday on why he changed course to go through with this bill, including the climate provisions, and despite a lengthy explanation and defense that the legislation will not be inflationary, he couldn’t explain the seeming about-face.
Manchin said Schumer was “mad” when he first paused the deal a few weeks ago, but he insisted he never “walked away” from negotiations.
After originally saying this month that he wanted to wait until the next set of economic data was released in August before moving forward on any legislation, Manchin said in his radio appearance Thursday that he directed his staff to scrub the bill down so there “can’t be one thing that you can say caused inflation.”
Still, he said he’s anticipating being criticized by Republicans over the 15% minimum corporate tax.
“Why is anybody or any corporation upset by not paying 15? So yes, I’m anxious to find out who they are,” he said. “Come forward.”
Some Republicans were also quick to criticize Manchin’s changing position, which they said left them in the lurch — having supported a separate computer chips bill when they thought the Democratic spending plan was dead.
What happens next
Democrats hope to use a fast-track process known as reconciliation that will allow the legislation to pass by a simple majority vote.
In the evenly divided Senate, Democrats need their entire caucus — including Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, who has vocally criticized Manchin, and Arizona Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, who like Manchin has bucked other party priorities — to back the bill with Vice President Kamala Harris then breaking a tie.
The party also needs their members to stay healthy enough to vote in-person before the recess. There is no proxy voting in the chamber, as there is in the House.
Manchin is currently recovering from COVID-19 and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin announced Thursday, hours after the spending deal was released, that he too had tested positive for the virus and will isolate following federal guidelines.
Schumer told Senate Democrats on Thursday that they have the opportunity to get the legislation passed before the August recess — just days away.
“When we were in the minority for many years before this Congress, we talked often as a caucus about what we would do if we got the majority back,” he said, according to a Democrat in the room.
“We have now been in the longest 50-50 Senate in history,” he said. “It has been a wild ride and there have been many ups and downs.”
– ABC News’ Justin Gomez contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Naomi Biden, President Joe Biden’s eldest granddaughter, will have her fall wedding on the South Lawn of the White House — the first time the White House has hosted nuptials since 2013.
“Sooo not sure how best to update but was supposed to do so weeks ago…but we have finally figured out where the ceremony will be…and much to the relief of secret service and with the dogs’ endorsement…we’ll be getting married on the South Lawn! Couldn’t be more excited,” the 28 year-old Naomi Biden, an attorney, wrote on Twitter on Thursday.
Aides had previously announced that she and her 25-year-old fiancé, lawyer Peter Neal, would have a reception at the White House on Nov. 19.
“Peter and I are endlessly grateful to my Nana and Pop for the opportunity to celebrate our wedding at the White House. We can’t wait to make our commitment to one another official and for what lies ahead,” Naomi Biden, daughter of the president’s younger son, Hunter, tweeted in April.
The White House has said the Biden family will be covering the cost of the reception as is consistent with other private events hosted by the first family and in keeping with the tradition of wedding festivities under prior administrations.
Naomi Biden and Neal were introduced by friends some four years ago, first lady Jill Biden’s office previously told reporters. Neal proposed in September in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, not far from where he grew up “with a ring that includes the band of his grandmother’s engagement ring.”
Their families “were there to surprise them after,” the first lady’s office has said.
According to the White House Historical Association (WHHA), there have been 18 documented weddings at the White House and four documented receptions. The most recent ceremony was in 2013, under President Barack Obama, when his photographer Pete Souza wed Patti Lease.
The most recent reception was in 2008, for President George W. Bush’s daughter Jenna Bush ahead of her marriage to Henry Hager at the Bush family ranch in Texas.
While the WHHA notes there have been weddings held in the Rose Garden, they do not list any weddings that took place on the South Lawn.
(NEW YORK) — With communities around the country suffering from extreme temperatures, just months after some of those same locations saw unbearable cold snaps, some state leaders are taking the initiative with proposals to help people navigate the consequences of climate change.
In California, state leaders have been pushing a legislative package that they say plans around the new normal of consistent 100-degree weather. Proposals like an extreme heat ranking system, similar to ones used in hurricanes, mandate cooling during high heat days and the creation of a chief heat officer are crucial for the wellbeing of residents, according to the bills’ supporters.
“We cannot wait for the federal government to do something,” state Assemblywoman Luz Rivas, who co-introduced the bills, told ABC News. “People are dying of extreme heat every day.”
Environmental experts agreed and said that more states and localities need to focus on extreme weather policies that are tailor made for their regions and do so soon.
“We don’t have any national adaption plan and as far as I know there is no talk about it,” Sarah Pralle, an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University who specializes in environmental policy, told ABC News. “That’s going to hurt us as more and more states experience these climate induced disasters.”
California legislators work to beat the heat
In May, the California state Assembly passed a series of bills that provide safeguards and protections for residents during high heatwaves, and are currently awaiting hearings in the state senate.
Under Rivas’ extreme heat ranking bill, the state’s Environmental Protection Agency would issue alerts with either a letter, number or color indicator that would warn a specific community about the heat threats to their area.
The assemblywoman noted that different parts of the state experience worse effects from heat waves, such as communities closer to the desert that are experiencing drought or neighborhoods that are higher risk for wildfires, and need different disaster preparations.
“The alert would provide recommendations to people with adequate time and how to compare and when it’s best to remain indoors,” Rivas said.
If passed, the warning system would make California the first state in the nation to have an extreme heat alert system, according to the assemblywoman.
Rivas said her heat related bill would create a chief heat officer, an extreme heat advisory council and interagency heat task force under the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. That officer and agencies would be tasked with preparing local governments with short- and long-term efforts to safeguard people from the heat and would provide grants for projects such as cooling centers in rural areas.
Rivas noted that several cities around the world, such as Athens and Miami, have recently created chief heat officer roles to streamline the process for getting mitigation efforts done and to have a dedicated staff focused on the high heat.
“In California we have multiple programs that can be spread over many agencies, but the idea of having this centralized position and office is crucial,” the assemblywoman said. “I think our local governments need the support from a statewide officer.”
Other approved heat related bills that are making their way through the state include assembly bill 2243 that would get a “ultraheat heat standard” for people working outdoors and require access to cool water and frequent rest periods, and assembly bill 2597 which would change building codes to require “safe maximum indoor air temperature” in newly constructed and existing dwelling units.
A good start that others can follow
Environmental experts tell ABC News that California’s bills could inspire other states and even the federal government to adopt similar measures.
Pralle said that the bill to create an extreme heat office will be beneficial, if approved, because it would keep the momentum for solutions to heat related problems consistent.
“The problem with disaster policy is there is a lot of attention during and after the disaster, we move onto different things,” she said. “The bad news about climate change is that these disasters keep happening so the conversations about policy have to keep going. So having an office whose job is to stay focused on this problem is a good thing.”
Daniel Kammen, a professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley, who has advised lawmakers in state legislators across the country on policies, told ABC News that it is difficult to gauge the success of environmental policies because of the rapidly worsening climate change effects.
“All of these adaption strategies are hard to do, because you’re spending money today and you’re not getting credit or results until years later,” he told ABC News. “Even climate scientists don’t understand the number of disruptions that are coming and how much we have to adapt.”
But when one state comes up with successful programs, Kammen said others are quick to follow suit. He cited California’s 2018 adoption of the zero carbon emissions as an example.
The executive order mandated state agencies to meet a goal of 100% carbon free electricity by 2045 and called on various state agencies to work on proposals to achieve the goal.
As of today, 20 other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have adapted similar zero carbon goals, according to the Clean Energy States Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of state energy organizations.
“State actions are invariably the way we test drive policies,” Kammen said.
Kammen said the latest California heat policies would be beneficial to other parts of the region, even those with completely different environments. He emphasized that the bills aimed at identifying which populations are most vulnerable to extreme heat is a topic that every state is dealing with.
“We need to be able to protect the most vulnerable. Those local and state efforts that invest in cooling are critical,” he said.
Kammen said other states have considered similar bills in the past for requiring workplace and housing safety during high heat and extreme cold weather, including New York. Policy makers will be keeping tabs on the progress of California’s bill and take any successful components that will apply to their states’ vulnerable neighborhoods, he predicted.
Kammen added that even states that haven’t made past investments or policies in combatting extreme weather are now facing the reality of climate change and taking legislative action.
He noted that Texas’s energy company began rolling out funding and proposals to improve its energy efficiency with new energy storage units which can provide clean fuel during outages after the stage was rocked by the cold winter storms in 2021.
“Texas to this day actually has the most energy storage that is now scheduled to be built. There are more energy storage projects in the build queue than the rest of the country combined,” Kammen said.
More work needed
Pralle said the California bills and other state initiatives are a good start to mitigating extreme temperatures but emphasized that those actions alone won’t be enough to help people.
She said many of the proposals issued by states call for more studies and aren’t changing the laws fast enough to deal with the problem.
“There are lot of good ideas out there, but my concern is that they’re not regulatory enough,” she said.
Pralle also emphasized that while hyperlocal environmental policies help to remedy communities specific extreme heat problems, they also come with hinderances. For example, state environmental policies may conflict with ones issued at the national level and lead to confusion among local officials.
“Having some innovation and ideas and having people do different things isn’t a bad thing,” she said. “However there comes a time when you have a patchwork of programs and that can be confusing.”
Pralle said that the best outcome for a state specific climate policy would be one that is successful enough to prompt the federal government to copy and implement nationally.
She contended that it’s going to take the entire country has to band together and move quickly, and any small step from local governments works.
“A national approach is better, but it’s been difficult to get that done. States do need to step in,” she said.
(WASHINGTON) — The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is working to secure testimony from a growing number of officials in former President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who reportedly discussed the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment with then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, recently sat with committee investigators for a transcribed interview, the sources said.
ABC News previously reported that Pompeo is expected to speak with the committee in the coming days, though his interview is not officially scheduled.
Among the officials actively negotiating with the committee are former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and former acting secretary for the Department of Homeland Security Chad Wolf, sources familiar with the negotiations said.
Wolf would also be able to speak to Trump’s desire to order the federal government to seize voting machines.
The engagement shows that even after the committee’s round of dramatic public hearings, it continues to pursue additional evidence about what the administration’s most senior officials knew about Trump’s actions surrounding Jan. 6.
Committee investigators are not only focused on the discussions surrounding the 25th Amendment that occurred within the Cabinet, but also Cabinet members’ concerns after the attack on the Capitol about Trump’s decision-making, including his potential conversations with world leaders.
Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, testified that Ratcliffe “didn’t want much to do with the post-election period.” Hutchinson said that Ratcliffe “felt that there could be dangerous repercussions, in terms of precedent set for elections, for our democracy, for the 6th. You know, he was hoping that we would concede.”
The committee also has expressed interest in speaking with other senior Trump officials like Robert O’Brien, the former national security adviser.
Representatives for Mnuchin, Ratcliffe, Wolf and O’Brien did not immediately respond to ABC’s request for comment.
Another area of focus are Cabinet officials who resigned in the wake on Jan. 6: former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
They will potentially join a growing list of officials who have already cooperated with committee investigators, including former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, former Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and former Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia. Former Attorney General Bill Barr also sat with committee investigators for a deposition.
A spokesperson for the Jan. 6 committee declined to comment.
Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone testified that Scalia wanted to convene a Cabinet meeting on Jan. 7 2021. Scalia told the committee he requested the meeting that morning because “I thought that trying to work within the administration to steady the ship was likely to have greater value than simply resigning.”
The committee has been releasing new information leading up to the release of the anticipated September report on their findings.
In an audio clip released by the panel earlier this week, then-acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller told investigators there was “no order” from Trump to have 10,000 National Guard troops ready for deployment ahead of Jan. 6. Miller was responding to a Mark Meadows interview with Fox News from February 2021 where he claimed that it was a “given” that Miller had told thousands of troops to be at the ready.
(NEW YORK) — The family of former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, who has been detained in Russia for more than three years, said they now have “a little bit of hope” after learning that the United States has offered a prisoner swap to bring home Whelan as well as another jailed American, professional basketball player Brittney Griner.
“The offer that the U.S. government has made — and extraordinarily made public — is super. Hopefully the Russian government will take the concessions that have been made and allow Paul to come home,” Paul Whelan’s twin brother, David Whelan, told ABC News’ Robin Roberts during an interview Thursday on Good Morning America.
It’s the first time the Whelan family has spoken out since U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced Wednesday that he will hold a call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov “in the coming days” and a critical topic of discussion will be securing Whelan and Griner’s freedom. Blinken revealed that the U.S. government had already “put a substantial proposal on the table weeks ago to facilitate their release” and remains hopeful for a breakthrough on their cases.
Three sources familiar with the offer confirmed to ABC News that the U.S. had proposed exchanging convicted Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout in order to secure Griner and Whelan’s release from Russia. CNN was first to report this plan.
“We speak to people in the State Department and the National Security Council on a regular basis, but not to this level of detail. I think we were all taken by surprise yesterday when the announcement was made,” David Whelan said. “And it’s nice also to know that the offers are being made — that perhaps this is the only one that’s been made public, but there may have been other offers made in the past by the U.S. government.”
Paul Whelan, a 52-year-old former Marine and Michigan-based corporate security executive, has been held in Russia since his December 2018 arrest on espionage charges, which both he and the U.S. government claim are false.
Griner, a 31-year-old Houston native and star center for the Phoenix Mercury, was returning to Russia to play in the WNBA’s offseason when she was detained at Sheremetyevo International Airport in the Moscow suburb of Khimki on Feb. 17, after being accused of having vape cartridges containing hashish oil, which is illegal in the country. The two-time Olympic gold medalist has been held in Russia ever since and is currently on trial for drug charges.
(WASHINGTON) — In a surprise move Wednesday, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin announced that not only had he reached a deal with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on a major health care-focused spending package — he had also signed onto climate and energy provisions.
It was a reversal of sorts for the conservative Democrat who just two weeks ago backed away from climate measures being included in any spending bill, telling a radio host that inflation was “absolutely killing many, many people” and that he would have to wait until July inflation numbers were out before considering such measures. Democrats were sure then that they would be left with a health care-only bill. Some other Senators had openly begun making their peace with it.
It was unclear Wednesday why Manchin had changed course.
“Today, we are pleased to announce an agreement,” Manchin and Schumer said in a joint statement, noting “many months of negotiations.”
The pair said they had “finalized legislative text” that, if approved, would reduce the deficit by some $300 billion while investing $369.75 billion in “Energy Security and Climate Change programs” over the next decade.
“The investments will be fully paid for by closing tax loopholes on wealthy individuals and corporations. In addition, the expanded Affordable Care Act program will be extended for three years, through 2025,” the senators said.
With Manchin’s approval, Democratic leaders in the evenly-divided chamber are now aiming to have the bill approved by the end of next week using a fast-track process known as reconciliation that allows passage of such legislation with a simple majority (and Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote).
The House, according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, would then return sometime in August to pass the measure.
If approved, it would be a major victory for President Joe Biden, who announced his support for the deal in a statement Wednesday night after speaking to both Manchin and Schumer. Biden had tried but failed to get his party united behind a sweeping $2 trillion “Build Back Better” economic and social safety net bill that included provisions like universal pre-K, Medicaid expansion and paid family leave, but Manchin previously balked at that price tag amid rising inflation, tanking that bill.
Similar, if scaled-down, proposals since have all failed to garner sufficient support among Democrats, with Republicans opposed.
Wednesday’s deal was likewise swiftly condemned by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who tweeted, “Democrats have already crushed American families with historic inflation. Now they want to pile on giant tax hikes that will hammer workers and kill many thousands of American jobs. First they killed your family’s budget. Now they want to kill your job too.”
While Democrats await the Senate’s rule-keeping parliamentarian scrubbing through the new deal to ensure all provisions meet the strict guidelines of reconciliation, details of what exactly are in the bill are not yet known. But according to Schumer and Manchin’s portrayal, the bill “lowers energy costs, increases cleaner production, and reduces carbon emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030,” measures that Democrats say will cost roughly the $369 billion.
Democrats also plan to extend for three years the pandemic-era subsidies for those lower-income Americans who buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. It was important for Democrats to push through those changes, they said, because insurance companies typically announce their premium increases in August.
The agreement, known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, brings in far more revenue — $739 billion — than the government would spend under this measure, according to Democrats. Together, the climate and ACA provisions would cost the government roughly $433 billion, and Democrats plan to put at least $300 billion of that toward deficit reduction.
That was at the insistence of Manchin, in a bid to bring down record inflation.
To bring in the needed money, Democrats said they plan to target big corporations and the “ultra-wealthy” by implementing a 15% corporate minimum tax as well as collecting more through IRS tax enforcement, both measures bringing in nearly $440 billion.
Republicans for weeks have warned that those tax hikes would hit small and mid-size businesses disproportionately, but Sens. Manchin and Schumer insisted in their news release that under their plan, there will be “no new taxes on families making $400,000 or less and no new taxes on small businesses” — a key campaign promise by President Biden.
“Senate Democrats can change the name of Build Back Broke as many times as they want, it won’t be any less devastating to American families and small businesses. Raising taxes on job creators, crushing energy producers with new regulations, and stifling innovators looking for new cures will only make this recession worse, not better,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement.
Most Senate Democrats have not yet seen the legislative text, though many appeared to be supportive.
Chris Coons of Delaware said he was “very encouraged.”
“I am pleased to report that this will be, by far, the biggest climate action in human history,”said Hawaii’s Brian Schatz. “Nearly $370 billion in tax incentives, grants, and other investments in clean energy, clean transportation, energy storage, home electrification, climate-smart agriculture, and clean manufacturing makes this a real climate bill.The planet is on fire. Emissions reductions are the main thing. This is enormous progress. Let’s get it done.”
A meeting of the entire Senate Democratic caucus is expected at 9 a.m. Thursday to run through the details of the new plan.
But not every member of the caucus was happy with the deal.
Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, bristled, telling reporters on Wednesday: “Last I heard, Sen. Manchin is not the majority leader, despite what you may think. Last I heard, he is not the only [a] member of the Democratic caucus. I will look at it and we’ll go from there.”
Democrats need each of their 50 votes to remain united and healthy to seal the deal — not an easy feat considering Manchin himself has been quarantined this week with COVID-19.
(TOPEKA, Kan.) — When Kansans head to the polls on Aug. 2 to vote in their primary election, they will also decide on a critical ballot measure that could impact the future of abortion legislation in their state.
Kansas is the first state in the nation to vote on reproductive freedom after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion. It is one of at least five states voting on reproductive rights this year, alongside California, Kentucky, Montana and Vermont. A measure that would amend the Michigan constitution to guarantee the right to reproductive freedom has also been proposed.
If the amendment passes, Kansas will be the fifth state to amend its state constitution to say it does not grant the right to abortion, joining Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia.
The amendment has drawn national attention, particularly in the wake of the last month’s Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
“I think a lot of people see the vote here as a kind of indicator of where politics might be headed,” Richard E. Levy, JB Smith Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Kansas School of Law, told ABC News.
Here’s what to know about the Kansas ballot measure, dubbed Value Them Both.
2019 state Supreme Court decision
The ballot measure is in response to a 2019 state Supreme Court decision on abortion restrictions. The ruling stemmed from a 2015 case challenging a Kansas law that aimed to largely ban dilation and evacuation, a method used in most second-trimester abortions.
In striking down the ban on the procedure, the judges ruled 6 to 1 that the Kansas constitution protects the “right of personal autonomy.”
“This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy,” the opinion states while prohibiting Kansas from restricting the right to an abortion “unless it is doing so to further a compelling government interest and in a way that is narrowly tailored to that interest.”
“The court adopted the most rigorous form of constitutional analysis, known as strict scrutiny,” Levy said. “So that in Kansas, under current law, regulations on abortion are valid only if they serve a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored to that interest.”
Since the ruling, a lower court has upheld that a ban on dilation and evacuation is “unconstitutional and unenforceable.” Another law pertaining to abortion in the state has also been blocked. The statute, what would be considered a TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) law by abortion rights advocates, would impose certain requirements on abortion providers.
Nearly a dozen other regulations on abortion remain in effect and have not been challenged, including mandated waiting periods and ultrasounds for patients, required parental consent, a ban on abortion after viability except where necessary to preserve a woman’s life or health, and limits on the use of public funding for abortion.
What’s on the ballot
In the wake of the 2019 ruling, the Republican-led state legislature attempted to pass a ballot measure that would reverse the decision. That measure failed in 2020 before passing the state House and Senate in 2021 to get on the ballot this year.
This is what voters will see as they head to the polls:
Explanatory statement. The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.
A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion.
A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.
If the amendment wins with a simple majority, this passage, included on the ballot as well, will be adopted into the state constitution:
§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.
What voting ‘yes’ means
Voting “yes” on the ballot measure supports amending Kansas’ constitution to state that it does not grant the right to an abortion and leaves regulation in the hands of the state legislature.
“The Kansas state Supreme Court overreached in 2019,” Mallory Carroll, a spokesperson for SBA Pro-Life America, which is part of a coalition working to pass the amendment, told ABC News. “The purpose of the amendment is to neutralize this decision so that this is an area for the people to use the tools of democracy to decide through their elected officials, not judges.”
The ballot measure is not an abortion ban. However, opponents, including the coalition Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, argue that the bill’s language could open the door to one.
“If the amendment passes, there will be an effort by the legislature to quickly ban abortion with no or very few exceptions,” Ashley All, a spokesperson for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, told ABC News, pointing to a failed bill introduced in the last legislative session that would have criminalized abortion in most cases.
“The language very clearly says that legislators may pass any law they want regarding abortion, and even in situations of rape, incest and the life of the mother. So we’re pretty confident that that’s where we’re headed,” All said.
Carroll said “anything is possible” when it comes to future abortion legislation if the amendment passes.
“That’s exactly because they’ll be using the tools of democracy to debate and find consensus,” she said. “We don’t know what consensus is going to look like in Kansas.”
One thing is clear — if the amendment passes, the laws targeting abortion providers and the second-trimester abortion procedure will “go into effect almost immediately,” Levy said. With no “trigger law” in place in Kansas, a general abortion ban would require further legislative action, he said.
What voting ‘no’ means
A “no” vote would maintain the status quo and affirm that reproductive rights are protected by the state constitution. The current enacted regulations on abortion would remain in effect, Levy said.
“There would still be a lot of regulations in place,” he said. “Some of those limitations might be vulnerable, but it’s unlikely.”
Opponents of the amendment have argued that abortion is already “heavily regulated” in Kansas even after the state Supreme Court ruling, while proponents are pushing for stronger pro-life policies.
If the amendment fails, Levy wagers that the state legislature might work to “test the limits” of the abortion protections in the state constitution.
Voter turnout a question
The ballot measure is being voted on in a primary election, which is expected to favor abortion opponents. Primary elections also historically draw fewer voters than general elections and might alienate independents, who otherwise have no reason to show up to the polls.
The primary coming weeks after the Dobbs decision may have helped generate interest in the ballot measure, Levy said. Early voter turnouts have been reported to be higher than usual in some areas as well.
“People are paying attention,” Levy said. “Whether that translates into high turnout, that’s another question.”
