(WASHINGTON) — Two leading House Democrats are requesting a government watchdog step away from an investigation into deleted text messages sent by the Secret Service around the time of the U.S. Capitol attack.
Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, chair of House Homeland Security Committee, and New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House Oversight Committee, sent the request Tuesday to the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
In their letter, Thompson and Maloney wrote they have “grave concerns” about Joseph Cuffari, the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general — including what they said was his failure to promptly notify Congress of “crucial information” while investigating Jan. 6.
“Inspector General Cuffari failed to provide adequate or timely notice that the Secret Service had refused for months to comply with DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) requests for information related to the January 6 attack and failed to notify Congress after DHS OIG learned that the Secret Service had erased text messages related to this matter,” Thompson and Maloney wrote.
“These omissions left Congress in the dark about key developments in this investigation and may have cost investigators precious time to capture relevant evidence,” Thompson and Maloney argued.
The letter raises other concerns about Cuffari’s performance, including “reports that he sought to censor findings of domestic abuse and sexual harassment by DHS employees” and his past refusal to investigate Secret Service actions.
The inspector general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.
Thompon and Cheney’s request for a new inspector general to complete the Jan. 6-related investigation comes amid myriad questions about how and why the Secret Service texts were deleted — after being sought — and why they may not be able to be recovered.
The DHS watchdog had requested the messages sent and received by 24 Secret Service members between December 2020 and January 2021, the period around the Jan. 6 attack.
But the agency said the texts in question were deleted as part of a “device-replacement program” even as the inspector general said that the deletions occurred only after his office requested the messages. The Secret Service insisted they had not acted “maliciously” and sought full cooperation with investigators.
A letter to the House Jan. 6 committee obtained by ABC News last week showed that the Secret Service ultimately provided a single text exchange from that day.
A criminal probe was opened by the DHS inspector general earlier this month.
The House committee subpoenaed the agency for the records on July 15.
The Secret Service has said it is working with the Jan. 6 committee, and spokesman Anthony Guglielmi told ABC News last week that the agency also delivered an initial set of records in response — including “thousands of pages of documents, Secret Service cell phone use and other policies, as well as operational and planning records.”
But the House panel has gone so far as to suggest the agency’s handling of the electronic communications may be a violation of federal record-keeping laws.
“Four House committees had already sought these critical records from the Department of Homeland Security before the records were apparently lost,” the Jan. 6 committee said in a statement last week. “Additionally, the procedure for preserving content prior to this purge appears to have been contrary to federal records retention requirements and may represent a possible violation of the Federal Records Act.”
Thompson and Maloney are asking the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to respond to their request by Aug. 9.
The Secret Service has already been under heightened scrutiny amid the Jan. 6 hearings.
Testimony from several witnesses suggested former President Donald Trump wanted to join his supporters at the Capitol last year and clashed with members of his security detail when they refused to take him there.
The agency has said it will respond to the testimony but has yet to make any official statement.
Last week, in the Jan. 6 committee’s second prime-time hearing, witnesses revealed that members of the security detail for Vice President Mike Pence were greatly concerned for his safety and well as their own as the violence at the Capitol escalated.
“The members of the VP detail at this time were starting to fear for their own lives,” a witness the committee identified only as a “White House security official” said in an interview.
(AUSTIN, Texas) — Texas’ “trigger” law, which raises the penalty for performing abortions, is set to go into effect on Aug. 25, after the U.S. Supreme Court formally issued its judgement overturning Roe v. Wade on Tuesday.
“Trigger” laws only take effect when certain events occur, in this case the law required a judgement overturning Roe, which had established a constitutional right to abortion at the federal level, or a case establishing states’ right to regulate abortion.
The so-called trigger law will establish civil and criminal penalties for performing banned abortions and prohibit nearly all abortions, with few exceptions including cases where a pregnancy poses a risk of death or serious impairment of a pregnant woman. The law will not apply to individuals seeking or attempting abortions, according to the law’s documentation.
The law criminalizes any attempt by a medical professional to perform, induce or attempt an abortion, making it a second-degree felony. However, if the pregnancy is successfully aborted, the offense becomes a first-degree felony, according to the law.
According to the Texas Penal Code, the punishment for a first-degree penalty could be up to life in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. The penalty for a second-degree felony is up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
The law also states that the Texas attorney general “shall file an action” seeking civil damages for those who perform abortions of no less than $100,000 per abortion performed, in addition to the possibility of requesting attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.
Any physician or provider who attempts, performs or induces an abortion could also have their medical license revoked. Medical licenses are regulated at the state level, not by the federal government.
While the court had released its opinion overturning Roe in June, it formally issued its judgement in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health on Tuesday, allowing so-called trigger laws in states, including Texas, to take effect.
The Texas “trigger” law, passed in September 2021, will go into effect 30 days after the Supreme Court issued its judgement, according to the Texas State Law Library.
Another Texas law in place, called SB8, places a near-total ban on abortions at 6 weeks and allows people to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an illegal abortion, to collect a bounty of at least $10,000.
Idaho and Tennessee also previously enacted laws that would ban nearly all abortions 30 days after the Supreme Court issues its judgment overturning Roe.
At least 13 states have ceased nearly all abortion services. Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas have near-total bans. Abortion providers in Arizona and Wisconsin have suspended abortion services due to confusion over the law. Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee have banned abortions after embryonic cardiac activity is detected — which is generally around six weeks — before many women know they are pregnant.
Earlier this month, Texas’ attorney general sued President Joe Biden’s administration after it issued an executive order telling doctors to perform abortions in medical emergencies.
-ABC News’ Devin Dwyer and Ely Brown contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Republican leaders who worry that Donald Trump could hurt their midterm chances by announcing a presidential run too soon are hoping he’ll be dissuaded from doing so by the prospect of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal payments, according to an RNC official.
Since October 2021, the Republican National Committee has paid nearly $2 million to law firms representing Trump as part of his defense against personal litigation and government investigations.
But an RNC official told ABC News that as soon as Trump would announce he is running for president, the payments would stop because the party has a “neutrality policy” that prohibits it from taking sides in the presidential primary.
In January, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel said, “The party has to stay neutral.”
“I’m not telling anybody to run or not to run in 2024,” she added. However she has since reaffirmed that Trump “still leads the party.”
RNC officials would not comment on the record for this story. Representatives for Trump also declined to comment.
This isn’t the first time that legal bills have been seen as possible leverage over Trump.
According to the book “Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show,” by ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl, in the final days of Trump’s presidency, Trump told McDaniel he was leaving the GOP and creating his own political party — only to back down after McDaniel made it clear to Trump that the party would stop paying his legal bills for his post-election challenges and take other steps that would cost him financially.
Both Trump and McDaniel have denied the story.
According to the RNC’s most recent financial disclosure to the Federal Elections Commission, from October 2021 through June of this year, the RNC paid at least $1.73 million to three law firms representing Trump, including firms that are defending him in investigations into his personal family business in New York. Last month alone, the RNC paid $50,000 to a law firm representing Trump in June.
The latest tally tops the $1.6 million maximum figure that the Republican Party’s executive committee reportedly voted to cover for Trump’s personal legal bills during an RNC meeting last year, a figure that The Washington Post, which first reported on the agreement in December, wrote could increase further with the party executive committee’s approval.
The RNC reported payments to law firms representing Trump as recently as mid-June, indicating the party leadership’s unfettered support for the former president and heightening critics’ concerns about the party’s neutrality ahead of the 2024 presidential primary season.
“I don’t think there’s been any effort” by the RNC to remain neutral, longtime Republican donor and Canary LLC CEO Dan Eberhart told ABC News. “This is a symbiotic relationship.”
“The RNC needs Trump or Trump surrogates or Trump’s likeness to raise money, and Trump wants them to continue paying his bills and be as pro-Trump as possible,” Eberhart said. “So neither is in a hurry to cut the umbilical cord.”
The RNC has continued to fundraise off of Trump’s name in its emails to supporters, touting a so-called “Trump Life Membership,” boosting his social media platform, and, most recently, promoting Trump’s first visit to Washington, D.C., since January of last year. Other potential 2024 presidential candidates and key party figures like former Vice President Mike Pence and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis have not received the same spotlight as Trump, experts say.
Eberhart said the current relationship between Trump and the RNC is putting other potential 2024 presidential candidates at an “absolute disadvantage.”
“Other Republican candidates seeking the Republican nomination for president have good reason to worry that the party apparatus is rigged against them in its unwavering support for Trump,” echoed Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at the progressive government-watchdog group Public Citizen.
“By paying Trump’s extensive legal bills, the RNC is indirectly helping finance the Trump campaign,” Holman said. “And given the history of the RNC zealously defending Trump, other Republican candidates should expect that they are not just running against Trump, they are also running against the Republican Party.”
Eberhart said “it’s an open secret” within the Republican Party that “nobody wants Trump to announce his candidacy until after the midterms.”
“Everyone thinks it’ll scramble the midterms and we could potentially destroy the advantage we have” if Trump would announce too early, Eberhart said. “It makes Trump more relevant and gives the Dems potentially a way to reset the race.”
RNC spokesperson Emma Vaughn, who declined to comment on the RNC’s recent legal payments to firms representing Trump, had previously told ABC News that “as a leader of our party, defending President Trump and his record of achievement is critical to the GOP.”
“It is entirely appropriate for the RNC to continue assisting in fighting back against the Democrats’ never-ending witch hunt and attacks on him,” Vaughn told ABC News in January, in response to questions about the party’s earlier legal payments for Trump.
The Republican Party committee has described the legal payments for Trump as support for the former president against political attacks against him. But at least two of the three firms that have been paid on behalf of Trump are involved in legal work on behalf of the former president regarding investigations against his personal businesses by the New York attorney general and Manhattan district attorney.
Although both officials are Democrats, they have both said their probes are not politically motivated.
In all, the $1.7 million paid in total to the three firms includes more than $862,000 paid to NechelesLaw LLP, $516,000 paid to Fischetti & Malgieri LLP, and $350,000 paid to van der Veen, Hartshorn and Levin, the RNC’s disclosure filings show. The most recent payments are $50,440 to Fischetti & Malgieri LLP in mid-June and $186,182 to NechelesLaw LLP in May.
Neither NechelesLaw LLP, Fischetti & Malgieri LLP, or van der Veen, Hartshorn and Levin responded to ABC News’ requests for comment.
The RNC is reportedly not covering Trump’s legal bills related to the House special committee’s investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. But as previously reported by ABC News, Trump’s leadership PAC, Save America, and his presidential committee-turned-PAC Make America Great Again PAC have been footing legal bills for witnesses involved in legal battles related to the events of Jan. 6, which has raised concerns about witness coercion from Jan. 6 committee members and legal experts.
Holman, the watchdog group lobbyist, said regulations that would govern legal expense funds for executive branch officials and candidates have been proposed to the Office of Government Ethics. Among the proposals are regulations that would enforce contribution limits, prohibit certain funding sources, and require the full disclosure of where money comes from and how it is spent.
“Until OGE finalizes these rules, however, Trump and the RNC legally can do almost whatever they want to pay for Trump’s legal woes and largely evade meaningful disclosure of the sources and expenditures of these funds,” Holman said.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden tested negative for COVID-19 on Tuesday night and again Wednesday morning and will end “his strict isolation measures,” according to the physician to the president, Dr. Kevin O’Connor.
The negative test comes less than one week after the president’s first positive test on Thursday morning.
Biden finished his five-day course of Paxlovid 36 hours ago, O’Connor wrote in a memo Wednesday morning that was subsequently released by the White House.
“His symptoms have been steadily improving, and are almost completely resolved,” O’Connor wrote.
In remarks later Wednesday morning from the Rose Garden, Biden called his recovery a “real statement of where we are in the fight against COVID-19.”
“Even if you get COVID, you can avoid winding up with a severe case. You can now prevent most COVID deaths, and that’s because of three free tools the Biden administration has invested in and distributed this past year: booster shots, at-home tests [and] easy-to-use, effective treatments. We got through COVID with no fear, I got through it with no fear, a very mild discomfort because of these essential, life-saving tools,” he said.
“COVID was killing thousands of Americans a day when I got here. That isn’t the case anymore. You can live without fear by doing what I did, get boosted, get tested and get treatment. At the same time, my administration remains vigilant. Right now, we have the tools to keep you from getting severely ill or dying from COVID, but we’re not stopping there,” he added.
His comments mark a continuation of the White House’s message that while the coronavirus is here to stay — something many public health experts have long been warning and fighting against — life can go largely back to normal for many, if not all, Americans.
“Let’s keep emerging from one of the darkest moments of our history with hope and light for what can come,” Biden said.
The president likely had the highly contagious BA.5 subvariant, and his symptoms had included a runny nose, cough, sore throat, a slight fever and body aches. O’Connor never reported any abnormalities in Biden’s pulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate or oxygen saturation throughout his infection.
Biden told reporters Monday that all his test results were “good” and “on the button.”
Biden is ending his strict isolation measures after being confined to the White House residence since his diagnosis. He will continue to wear a “well-fitting” mask as needed for 10 days.
He worked while in isolation, posting a photograph on Twitter Monday of him and his dog, Commander, saying he “took some calls this morning with man’s best co-worker.”
The president tweeted a picture of his negative test on Wednesday and said that he’s returning to the Oval Office.
Biden “continues to be very specifically conscientious to protect any of the Executive Residence, White House, Secret Service and other staff whose duties require any (albeit socially distanced) proximity to him,” O’Connor wrote in his memo on Wednesday.
Biden will increase his testing cadence in light of the possibility of a Paxlovid “rebound,” O’Connor wrote, referring to a seemingly rare but increasingly reported phenomenon in which COVID symptoms recur or there is the development of a new positive viral test after having tested negative.
The president is fully vaccinated and has received two booster shots, but at the age of 79 was considered to be at a higher risk for severe illness.
Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, stressed after Biden’s diagnosis that all Americans should take advantage of vaccinations and treatments courses.
“This is a president who’s double-vaccinated, double-boosted, getting treatments that are widely available to Americans and has at this moment a mild respiratory illness,” Jha told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday. “This is really good news, and this is both vaccines and treatments that are available to everyone. Really important that people go out and get vaccinated and avail themselves of these treatments if they get infected.”
First lady Jill Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris both tested negative for COVID-19 after spending time with the president before his diagnosis.
ABC News’ Ben Gittleson, Alexandra Hutzler and Arielle Mitropoulos contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) – Nancy Pelosi was the guest speaker at the unveiling of a new statue at Statuary Hall of Amelia Earhart, the famous aviator born in Atchison, Kansas in 1897, who made history as the first female pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean.
The speaker of the house described Earheart as “an American who personifies the daring and determined spirit of our nation.”
Following Pelosi’s opening statements, the national anthem and a prayer from Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., Kansas’ Gov. Lauren Kelly took the stage.
“Who better than to represent our great state in Statuary Hall than Dwight D. Eisenhower and now a native daughter of Kansas, Amelia Earhart,” Kelly said. “A woman who showed all of us what it means to reach for the stars.”
The bronze statue took seven years for brothers George and Mark Lundeen to create. Because only two statues are allowed to represent each state, and only one can be placed in Statuary Hall, Earhart’s likeness replaced that of U.S. Senator John Ingalls whose statue has occupied the hall since 1907.
This is just the 11th statue of 100 that represents a woman. U.S. Representative from Kansas, Sharice Davids championed her as a pioneer of women’s rights.
“Female pilots used to be called ladybirds, sweethearts of the air, and because of Amelia Earhart back then, now, and into the future, women who fly planes are now called pilots,” said Davids.
U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., described the unveiled piece as “a statue of a determined woman with short cut hair, a curious smile, a bomber hat in hand and a sunflower on her belt buckle.”
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden tested negative for COVID-19 on Tuesday night and again Wednesday morning and will end “his strict isolation measures,” according to the physician to the president, Dr. Kevin O’Connor.
The negative test comes less than one week after the president’s first positive test on Thursday morning.
Biden finished his five-day course of Paxlovid 36 hours ago, O’Connor wrote in a memo Wednesday morning that was subsequently released by the White House.
“His symptoms have been steadily improving, and are almost completely resolved,” O’Connor wrote.
The president is set to address the public from the Rose Garden later Wednesday.
He “will give remarks after his negative test about a case that was mild thanks to the tools this administration has worked hard to make available to the American people,” an administration official told reporters. “He will discuss the progress we have made against COVID and encourage eligible Americans to get vaccinated and boosted.”
The president likely had the highly contagious BA.5 subvariant, and his symptoms had included a runny nose, cough, sore throat, a slight fever and body aches. O’Connor never reported any abnormalities in Biden’s pulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate or oxygen saturation throughout his infection.
Biden told reporters Monday that all his test results were “good” and “on the button.”
Biden will now end his strict isolation measures after being confined to the White House residence since his diagnosis. Biden continued to work in isolation, posting a photograph on Twitter Monday of him and his dog, Commander, saying he “took some calls this morning with man’s best co-worker.”
The president tweeted a picture of his negative test on Wednesday and said that he’s returning to the Oval Office.
Biden “continues to be very specifically conscientious to protect any of the Executive Residence, White House, Secret Service and other staff whose duties require any (albeit socially distanced) proximity to him,” O’Connor wrote in his memo on Wednesday. “For this reason, he will wear a well-fitting mask for 10 full days any time he is around others.”
Biden will increase his testing cadence in light of the possibility of a Paxlovid “rebound,” O’Connor wrote, referring to a seemingly rare but increasingly reported phenomenon in which COVID symptoms recur or there is the development of a new positive viral test after having tested negative.
The president is fully vaccinated and has received two booster shots, but at the age of 79 was considered to be at a higher risk for severe illness.
Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, stressed after Biden’s diagnosis that all Americans should take advantage of vaccinations and treatments courses.
“This is a president who’s double-vaccinated, double-boosted, getting treatments that are widely available to Americans and has at this moment a mild respiratory illness,” Jha told ABC’s This Week on Sunday. “This is really good news, and this is both vaccines and treatments that are available to everyone. Really important that people go out and get vaccinated and avail themselves of these treatments if they get infected.”
First lady Jill Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris both tested negative for COVID-19 after spending time with the president before his diagnosis.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
ABC News’ Tal Axelrod, Ben Gittleson, Alexandra Hutzler and Arielle Mitropoulos contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top adviser to then-President Donald Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, has recently cooperated with the Department of Justice investigation into the events of Jan. 6, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The Justice Department reached out to her following her testimony a month ago before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, the sources said.
The extent of her cooperation was not immediately clear.
Hutchinson becomes the latest known figure with knowledge of the actions of top Trump administration officials on Jan. 6 to cooperate with the Justice Department’s inquiry.
A lawyer for Hutchinson did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment. Officials with the DOJ also declined to comment, as did a spokesperson for the Jan. 6 committee.
Hutchinson publicly testified before the Jan. 6 committee earlier this month, spending some two hours recounting details about what she said went on behind the scenes at the White House leading up to, during, and after the Jan. 6 attack.
Her account included descriptions of events she both witnessed directly and other events she said were described to her.
(WASHINGTON) — U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with the family of slain Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh on Tuesday amid renewed demands for justice.
Blinken had previously spoken to Abu Akleh’s relatives via telephone, but Tuesday was their first in-person meeting. The family traveled from their home in Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem to meet with him at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C.
While the meeting was ongoing, State Department spokesperson Ned Price told reporters during a press briefing that Blinken would “use the opportunity to underscore for Shireen’s family our deepest condolences on her tragic death and to reiterate the priority we attach to accountability — something we continue to discuss with our Israeli and Palestinian partners as well.”
“It is a priority for us that we see appropriate accountability,” Price added.
Lina Abu Akleh, the journalist’s niece, took to Twitter after the meeting with Blinken, saying: “Although he made some commitments on Shireen’s killing, we’re still waiting to see if this administration will meaningfully answer our calls for #JusticeForShireen.”
“Accountability requires action,” she tweeted. “We look forward to a US investigation that leads to real consequences. Shireen was my aunt and the voice of Palestine and she was killed by an Israeli soldier.”
She said her family also stressed to Blinken the importance of a meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden, who tested positive for COVID-19 last week.
“A meeting with him will demonstrate to our family that Shireen’s case is a priority for this administration,” she tweeted. “Since he didn’t meet with us in Jerusalem, we came to DC. We need him to hear from us directly.”
Abu Akleh, a veteran 51-year-old journalist working for Al Jazeera, was killed on May 11 while on assignment covering an Israeli military raid in the occupied West Bank. The Israeli Defense Forces said exchanges of gunfire erupted between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants, and Abu Akleh, who had been wearing a protective vest identifying her as a member of the press, was shot in the head. She was rushed in critical condition to a local hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
Abu Akleh’s death has sparked controversy as Palestinians claimed she was killed by Israeli gunfire, while the Israeli Defense Forces steadfastly denied that was the case.
So far, the United States has served as sort of an intermediary between separate Israeli and Palestinian investigations. The U.S. Security Coordinator’s office in Israel, which monitors Israeli and Palestinian security arrangements, recently analyzed the full investigations carried out by authorities on both sides and determined that gunfire from Israeli positions likely killed Abu Akleh but appeared to be unintentional.
Earlier this month, in an exclusive statement to Politico, Abu Akleh’s family called those findings “an affront to justice,” claiming it “enabled Israel to avoid accountability for Shireen’s murder.” They also accused the White House of failing to take their concerns seriously.
Abu Akleh’s family made clear on Tuesday that they want the Biden administration to launch its own probe into the circumstances surrounding her death. But the State Department showed no sign of reevaluating its stance.
“We have published the findings in this case. We believe that by publishing the findings it speaks to our commitment to pursuing an investigation that is credible, an investigation that is thorough, and, importantly, an investigation that culminates in accountability,” department spokesperson Ned Price said Tuesday. “And it is that question of accountability that we have continued to discuss with our Palestinian partners and, of course, with our Israeli partners as well.”
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI,JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Joe Biden and Donald Trump have been headed for another face-off since the day Trump lost to Biden in 2020 — but voters say they are upset with the direction of the country and just as ambivalent about having either Biden or Trump lead their political parties in two years, adding an unusual level of uncertainty to what could be a historic 2024 contest.
A New York Times/Siena College poll earlier this month showed abysmal numbers for both leaders: Biden’s job approval scraped 33%, a new nadir, and 64% of Democrats surveyed said they wanted a different nominee in 2024. Meanwhile, 51% of Republicans said they wanted someone other than Trump to be their standard-bearer in the next presidential election — and despite Biden’s unsteady footing, Trump still narrowly trailed him in a hypothetical head-to-head.
Such stark numbers only supercharged speculation, among politicos, over whether either of the two will be on the ballot come 2024. How unusual would it be for them to run against one another again? If not them, then who? And what can change between now and then?
“When you have such a sour, negative political environment, voters in general are looking for change,” said GOP pollster Robert Blizzard. “They’re looking for new voices, new people.”
The underlying reasons for this can be contradictory, given voters’ political differences. There is concern about the economy and rising inflation, about the persistence of the coronavirus, about crime and gun violence — including the habitual spasms of mass shootings — and about abortions, LGBTQ rights and more.
Gallup’s polling on how “satisfied” Americans are has consistently declined since the mid-2000s — but it has shown ever-sharper dissatisfaction since 2021. The most recent survey, in June, reported 87% dissatisfaction.
As those numbers refuse to budge — and, in particular, as voters increasingly focus on historically high inflation despite other good economic news — Biden’s approval rating has crumbled.
Steve Phillips, a progressive Democratic donor, said there was another factor influencing Biden’s intraparty weakness: Democrats want him to be more forceful in advocating for the base’s priorities.
In response, Biden and his administration have touted a range of executive actions he has taken but stressed that he is limited by Democrats’ fragile majority in Congress. Often, Biden will urge voters to elect more Democrats so he can do more.
Phillips, the donor, sees it another way.
“There’s 45-47% of people in the country who are going to hate Biden regardless. And then the worst is: What about those who elected him? And that’s where the disappointment comes in. And there’s such a reluctance to tackle the fights that are coming with the same intensity that they are coming. That’s what I think is responsible for the low poll numbers,” he said.
Still, Trump hasn’t seemed to reap many benefits from the drop in Biden’s support.
The same Times/Siena poll showing Biden only winning the approval of a third of all voters also showed that 92% of Democrats would back him if he faces off against Trump in a general election, where he would be expected — in this survey — to narrowly triumph.
Biden insists he’ll run again if he’s healthy. In an impassioned exchange with ABC News earlier this month, he said, “They [Democrats] want me to run.” Pressed on this, he noted that “92% said if I did, they’d vote for me.”
Still, his anemic approval ratings and advanced age — cited by a third of Democrats in the Times/Siena poll as the reason they wanted another nominee — have fueled a rumor mill over his second-term ambitions at the same time that other politicians have jockeyed for a bigger spotlight.
Observers say the potential 2024 short-list includes past candidates like Vice President Kamala Harris, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
Democratic Govs. Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Gavin Newsom of California, J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer were also repeatedly mentioned by over a half-dozen Democratic aides who spoke to ABC News.
“I think there is a lot of people who could very quickly step into the spotlight who are qualified, who are dynamic and who I think could capture the public’s imagination,” said strategist Jon Reinish.
Some of the would-be candidates have, according to reports, privately acknowledged the possibility of 2024.
The Washington Post reported that it obtained a memo earlier this year written by a Sanders’ campaign adviser that Sanders would consider a third White House bid if Biden didn’t run in 2024.
Others have conspicuously swatted away the idea that they’re waiting in the wings.
During an earlier interview with ABC News, Newsom insisted he had no White House ambitions — which he reiterated while in Washington this month to accept an award on education. He said then that he supported Biden being on the ticket in 2024.
But Newsom — like Govs. Pritzker and Whitmer — has also seized on certain issues. All three have seen their profiles grow as a result. Pritzker, who recently made a trip to New Hampshire, spoke bluntly about why he supported gun control in the wake of a Fourth of July parade massacre in his state.
Meanwhile Whitmer has emerged as a forceful Democratic defender of abortion access and Newsom, despite playing down the 2024 possibilities, this month ran an ad in Florida berating Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis — and casting himself as a culture warrior in the process.
Many party experts said that it was Harris who would start in a particularly strong position.
“Whereas you may hear people making waves or putting their toe in the water, there’s always the presumption and the courtesy that … we’ll wait to see what the current vice president is going to do,” said one Democrat with ties to the White House.
Some Democrats chalked that activity up to just laying the groundwork if Biden were to pass on 2024 — but observers said the candidates could be getting more emboldened as Biden’s footing worsens.
“I think that the poll numbers, the whispers, certainly I think do motivate people to float trial balloons,” said Phillips, the donor.
Across the aisle, Republican rumors over 2024 are flying just as fast.
Trump has openly teased a forthcoming comeback bid — telling New York magazine in an interview this month that “in my own mind, I’ve already made that decision” and that he was only debating the timing of his announcement.
Still, he would be running as the party’s most recent presidential loser — and one who faces not only intense scrutiny over his actions around last year’s Capitol riot but also a number of legal problems, including investigations in Georgia and New York. (He denies all wrongdoing and has cast the House Jan. 6 committee as politically motivated.)
Some critics also note that, like Biden, he has been dogged by questions about his advancing age and acuity.
On top of that, Trump seems fixated on his loss to Biden — a focus that some experts say keeps him from talking about issues like inflation that are currently motivating voters.
While Trump remains the de facto GOP leader and party kingmaker, offering or withholding a powerful endorsement in down-ballot races across the country, strategists are forecasting a crowded field for the 2024 nomination.
“By focusing on 2020 all the time and trying to litigate that election, he’s not presenting a positive vision for the future. And I think that there are some other Republican candidates out there who are making it pretty clear that they want to run in ’24 and that they have ideas as to where America should go and they’re not afraid to run, even if Trump is in the race,” said Bob Heckman, a veteran of several GOP presidential campaigns.
The list of other would-be 2024 candidates amounts to a who’s-who of Republican leaders, including Trump’s own Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Florida’s Gov. DeSantis and Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Ted Cruz of Texas, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rick Scott of Florida.
Vocal Trump detractors like Maryland’s Republican Gov. Larry Hogan — who sent nearly hourly tweets about a recent trip to New Hampshire — are also being floated.
Several of those politicians are endorsing their candidates in the midterms, even when it conflicts with Trump, and traveling to critical primary states.
And while many of them may stay out of a primary should Trump run, laying the groundwork early could be critical in case he doesn’t.
“Anyone who is thinking about running for president will realize that this could be their last best shot. Because if they don’t run, and another Republican wins, they’re effectively sidelined for the next decade,” said Alex Conant, a top aide on Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) 2016 presidential campaign. “If a Republican wins in 2024, the next time there’ll be an open White House is 2032.”
But timing is a delicate dance in the Trump-dominated GOP. While the former president is not anticipated to clear the field if he runs, being the first opposing primary candidate out of the gate could engender brutal attacks — a repeat of Trump’s approach to his 2016 opponents.
“I think there’s a recognition and a degree of respect for Trump’s political power of waiting. They have no choice. Those who step out too early can get slapped down really easy,” said former Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis.
Should Biden and Trump both run and win their respective nominations — as many expect — strategists of both parties are anticipating a highly unusual election.
A rematch between a current and former president, both of whom are facing popularity issues within their own party, would be virtually unheard of.
Historian Mark Updegrove said the closest comparison is President Grover Cleveland, who served from 1885 to 1889 before losing to Benjamin Harrison, only to reclaim the White House four years later.
But even that is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
“That’s the closest thing we come to this. But the circumstances here are highly unusual for so many reasons, not the least of which is you’d have to septuagenarians right now who are considering this race, and by the time the election comes around, Joe Biden will be 82 years old. So age becomes a factor in this as well as all the other unusual aspects of the matchup,” Updegrove said.
That being said, Updegrove noted that if current economic conditions continue, Trump has a wide opening to go on the offense given rampant inflation — but he may be undercutting himself by his singular focus on the 2020 election.
“Americans are going to be tired of it … And if he continues to harp on this message that something was taken from him, that election was stolen from him, I think it’s going to hurt,” Updegrove said. “I think the smart play would be to talk up what he could do to rejuvenate a foundering economy. That, to my mind, is Joe Biden’s true Achilles heel.”
Operatives, of course, warn against reading the tea leaves in the summer of 2022. The distance to the 2024 race is essentially a political lifetime. Trump himself proved that: The real estate mogul and reality TV host was on almost nobody’s radar as a sincere candidate in summer 2014.
“It’s good not to chisel your long-term plans in politics into rock,” said Jared Leopold, a former top staffer at the Democratic Governors Association. “It’s better left in pencil.”
(WASHINGTON) — In advance of an oversight committee hearing with AR-15 manufacturers on their role in the gun violence epidemic on Wednesday, committee chair Rep. Carolyn Maloney sat down with ABC News to discuss the context.
One month after President Joe Biden signed bipartisan gun reform into law, targeted red flag laws and expanded background checks, House Democrats are working on additional gun reform legislation.
Maloney spoke with ABC News about new legislation that would target the sale of semiautomatic weapons, the chances of getting additional legislation passed through the Senate and her hopes for the Wednesday hearing.
GMA3: Congresswoman, thank you for being back on the program. So tell me, is this new legislation to ban semiautomatic weapons, is this meant to do what the initial bipartisan gun legislation did not do?
REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: Well, we need to continue building on the work of passing historic gun reform legislation. And my hearing this week should be a wakeup call to action for Congress to act to hold these gun manufacturers accountable for the deadly weapons that they’re manufacturing that are killing innocent Americans.
We expect to pass a bill banning assault weapons. We did this in 1994. It sunseted after ten years. But during that period, gun deaths went down. So, this is important legislation. Believe me, T.J., if guns made us safer, we’d be the safest nation on Earth. We are far from it. We’re the most dangerous.
GMA3: As again, that statistic we always hear we have more guns in this country than we actually do people in the country. But still, what chance does this legislation have? And do you have the votes right now, even in the House? Because even if it gets past the House, I think most would agree it has no chance in the Senate.
MALONEY: Well, we will get it through the House. I believe we have the votes in the House. The Senate is a challenge, but we need to take a vote and hold people accountable with the American public that has had it with these mass shootings in schools and in our synagogues and churches, our neighborhoods. It’s got to get these dangerous guns off the street. And the weapon of choice is the AR-15 assault weapon.
We are also passing legislation that will end the immunity that gun manufacturers have for manufacturing deadly weapons that are killing so many innocent people.
GMA3: Congresswoman, what do you think? You said you’re not sure if you have the votes yet. You think you’ll have them in the House. But even talking to Sen. Chris Murphy last week and I asked him, I said, where is the next step? What negotiations are going on for the possible next piece of gun legislation? And he just said, “hey, we just got this one done. Just let us– give us a minute to implement this one” and nothing else, really. Even for him who’s been so passionate on this issue, he thought we needed to just give it a beat. So why so quickly? You think there is momentum right now that needs to be taken advantage of?
MALONEY: After Buffalo and Uvalde, the innocent murders of so many schoolchildren, they are hold – we have more mass shootings in schools than any place in the world. More people die, roughly 40,000 a year from gun violence, and we need to take steps. We need to hold people accountable. And we need to continue putting a focus on it like you are today and passing legislation that will make it safer for our citizens.
Other countries don’t have this challenge. Only America. Usually they have a mass shooting and they pass gun safety laws and that’s it. But we have mass shooting after mass shooting. And we know what to do, unlike so many challenges where we don’t have the answer. We know gun safety laws are important and what they are and that we need to pass them. So we need to keep trying.
GMA3: And, Congresswoman, I know the hearing is tomorrow. You invited these gun manufacturers, the head of these companies to come. First question, how well-attended do you think it’s going to be? How many CEOs and gun manufacturers, the executives do you expect to have there? And what does it look like to hold a gun maker accountable for a gun? Yes, they make them, but then they don’t sell them or use them. So where do you see their accountability and where do they need to be doing better?
MALONEY: Well, I would say we have invited three manufacturers, CEOs, two have accepted. One is dodging us and not responding to our requests for documents. And we intend to hold them accountable eventually in some form.
But to your question, most industries have a responsibility for their products. We have liability on our cars. Every time there’s a car wreck, we study it. We should do the same thing with guns. We should have liability on guns. They’re far more dangerous than cars.
And then the drug industry, they keep a record of how much problems result from their drugs. We should be doing the same thing with guns. There are ways to hold them accountable. Stay tuned. You’ll hear more information from our hearing this weekend. And we are working on additional legislation that will be coming forward hopefully that will make America safer for our citizens.
GMA3: And can I ask, do you find something in their marketing, in something of the type of weapon they’re making? Would you like to see them cut back on how many of these weapons they make? I guess, what would you like to see them do?
MALONEY: Well, their marketing is horrendous. They are marketing to young people. They are having raffles. They have all kinds of ads to entice people to play on their emotions and their insecurities. Their marketing is absolutely horrendous. They need to be held accountable and they have not. It is an industry that is producing deadly weapons that are killing innocent people. And we need to take steps to hold them accountable.
I’ll have more information at the hearing. It’s embargoed now, but I always love talking to you, T.J., and we’ll have more information after the hearing. We have a report that will be coming out. And the information in it is at this point embargoed until the hearing tomorrow.
