Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. military has a recruiting problem, with a former senior military official telling ABC News the viability of the all-volunteer force could be at stake.

Pentagon data show a simple, troubling trend: Fewer and fewer young Americans want to serve, and due to obesity and other problems, fewer are qualified.

The Defense Department’s top personnel and readiness leader blamed the nation’s competitive job market as a major contributor while testifying on Capitol Hill in late April.

“The Department is in fierce competition for skilled, relevant and innovative talent. The labor market, exacerbated by the effects of the pandemic and the military-civilian divide creates a challenging recruiting environment,” Gilbert Cisneros told senators at an Armed Services subcommittee hearing.

A former senior military official told ABC News that today’s recruiters face a great challenge in pitching the benefits of enlisting to young people, with private companies using impressive incentives to entice prospects.

“Many of the things that we used to offer, like the GI Bill, are offered by private industry today. So they’re no longer a benefit,” the former senior official said.

Even the Marine Corps, which does not usually struggle to find recruits, is under pressure to meet its goals.

“We made mission last year; however, FY22 has proved to be arguably the most challenging year in recruiting history,” Marine Lt. Gen. David Ottingnon said in written testimony before joining Cisneros at the Senate hearing in April. “In addition to COVID-19, the growing disconnect and declining favorable view between the U.S. population and traditional institutions, labor shortages, high inflation, and a population of youth who do not see the value of military service also continue to strain recruiting efforts and place the Marine Corps’ accession mission at risk.”

Only 9% of young people now show a propensity to serve, according to Defense Department polling data shared with ABC News. It’s the lowest number seen in 15 years.

Top reasons cited for not wanting to join are the possibility of injury or death, and fear of developing PTSD or other psychological problems.

But the pool of young people who meet the basic standards to enlist in the military is also shrinking.

Only 23% of Americans aged 17 to 24 are eligible to join without being granted a waiver. This is down from 29% in recent years, according to Pentagon data. Obesity and drug use are common disqualifying factors.

The former senior official, who maintains contact with active-duty leaders, said the poor shape of some incoming troops has led the Army to stop trying to have them run within the first two weeks of basic training.

“They have to teach them how to run, and they’ve had issues with bone density to the point that, when they do run them, they’ve ended up breaking a leg or worse, a hip,” the former official said. “I’ve even heard in some cases they’re putting them on diets of Ensure — you know, the stuff for old [people] like me — in order to build that bone density.”

A second former senior military official told ABC News the problem is worse than the general public realizes.

“To the average civilian who’s not knowledgeable about the situation, they think there are all kinds of kids around. Yeah, but you can’t bring them in the Army if they’re obese, if they’ve got a history of drug abuse, all these other things. So it’s a much smaller population,” the second former official said.

The Army slightly exceeded its enlisted active-duty recruiting goal for FY21, but has so far only met about 40% of its goal for FY22, which ends in three months.

The last few months of the fiscal quarter is usually when the Army gets most of its recruits for the year, because that’s when high school graduation occurs, but an Army official acknowledged that “this is an unprecedented year.” The Army is clearly behind where it would like to be.

In an attempt to expand its base of applicants, the Army this week advertised that it was “offering limited eligibility for applicants who do not have a GED or High School diploma to enlist in the Regular Army.”

The Army said the opportunity was not new, and that some people without diplomas or GEDs have been able to enlist in the past, “just on a very limited basis.” Prospective recruits without the standard educational credentials would have had to score at least a 50 on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, which indicates scoring in the 50th percentile.

While the opportunity was not new, it was not something actively advertised by the Army until this week.

The second former senior military official spoke of the importance diplomas held at the time they served.

“If they had graduated from high school it meant that they had started something and had finished it. And they were far more likely to succeed in the Army because of that discipline,” the former official said.

On Thursday, the announcement welcoming qualifying non-graduates was removed from the Army Recruiting Command’s website. Two Army officials confirmed to ABC News that the service is halting the initiative to reassess its merits.

“The Army has currently paused its efforts to take some time to ensure that this option sets recruits up for success in their Army career,” one Army official with close knowledge of the decision said.

“The authorities exist, but at this stage we’re not bringing them in,” another Army official said. This official said it’s possible Army leaders will later decide to proceed with enlisting a small group of qualifying non-graduates to see if doing so would be viable at a larger scale.

Neither official could say how many non-graduates have been able to enlist through waivers in years past.

The first former senior defense official painted a grim picture for the military as a whole.

“I have a real concern of the viability of the all-volunteer force, I really do. I don’t see anything changing that’s going to right this ship right now. Albeit there are a lot of good people trying to do everything they can, there are a lot of issues out there that have to be fixed,” the former official said.

It would help to empower recruiters with more incentive tools, though that would mean more funding for things like enlistment bonuses and higher pay likely coming at the expense of other important military projects, according to the former official.

Cisneros told senators that a 4.6% military pay raise included in the FY23 defense budget will help, adding that he is working closely with the services to “leverage all authorities, resources and tools” to address recruiting challenges.

The second former senior military official said the recruiting problem is a sign of wider societal problems.

“It’s a reflection on our country. It is our country, and those recruiters see those problems firsthand every day,” the former official said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Friday met virtually with Democratic governors to talk reproductive health care amid some party disappointment over the administration’s response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

New York’s Kathy Hochul provided a list to Biden of potential actions, including additional funding for family planning services more broadly so that providers can focus private dollars for abortion services.

Hochul also asked Biden to give more consideration to his ability to “use federal facilities” for abortion care — a move the White House has said would have “dangerous ramifications.”

“What am I talking about? Veterans hospitals, military bases and other places where the federal government controls the jurisdiction in some of the states that are hostile to women’s rights, and make sure that those services can be available to other women,” Hochul suggested.

New Mexico’s Lujan Grisham said she agreed “wholeheartedly” with Hochul’s assessment that there are more federal opportunities to protect women’s access to care, and suggested Indian Health Service clinic and sovereign tribal nations could be another avenue for Biden to pursue.

The president on Friday again decried the Supreme Court’s decision ending 50 years of abortion rights as “terrible.”

“I share the public outrage at this extremist court that’s committed to moving America backwards with fewer rights, less autonomy,” he said as he spoke with state leaders from the White House’s South Court Auditorium.

Biden also touted some steps he’s taken in the aftermath of the Roe decision, such as instructing the Justice Department to protect women traveling out-of-state for care and Health and Human Services to ensure access to federally-approved medication such as contraception and the abortion pill mifepristone.

But some Democrats say the administration should have been better prepared for Roe’s fall, given the decision released by the high court on June 24 was leaked in early May.

Washington Sen. Patty Murray expressed frustration that the Biden team wasn’t ready, telling ABC News on Monday that Biden should do “absolutely everything in his power to protect access to abortion in America.”

Other governors in attendance for the virtual roundtable were New Mexico’s Michelle Lujan Grisham, Connecticut’s Ned Lamont, Colorado’s Jared Polis, Illinois’ J.B. Pritzker, Washington’s Jay Insee, Oregon’s Kate Brown and Rhode Island’s Daniel McKee.

Their states have moved to protect women’s access to reproductive health care before and after the high court’s decision.

In Connecticut, Gov. Lamont signed a new law strengthening abortion rights. The law, which also includes protections for medical providers and patients traveling from out of state seeking abortion, went into effect today.

Hochul has instructed the state legislature to add equal rights to the agenda of their special, stating that after today lawmakers will be a step closer to enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution.

“The rights of millions of women across this country are now falling on the shoulders of just a handful of states,” Hochul said.

In addition to urging more action from Biden, some of the governors in attendance also called on Congress to make Roe federal law by passing the Women’s Health Protection Act.

The president yesterday called for a carveout in the Senate filibuster to codify Roe, but acknowledged on Friday that he didn’t have the votes.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., view of the filibuster remains “unchanged,” her spokesperson told ABC News. Fellow moderate Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., is also unlikely to support changes to the rule, telling reporters he wants to see a bipartisan solution.

Biden said Friday the American people need to elect more Democrats to the House and Senate to “get this bill to my desk.”

Biden predicted that a Republican-controlled Congress would try to pass a total ban on abortion.

“So the choice is clear: We either elect federal senators and representatives who will codify Roe, or Republicans who will elect the House and Senate will try to ban abortions nationwide,” Biden said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told reporters Friday that the upcoming launch of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline’s new three-digit number, 988, on July 16, “will work, if the states are committed to it.”

The new number, which advocates envision as the mental health equivalent to 911, Becerra said, “Won’t work well, if they’re not [committed].”

The Lifeline has been in operation using a 10-digit number since 2005. In the years since, the service has received more than 20 million calls from people experiencing mental distress.

With the launch of the new number, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (a division of HHS) expects a dramatic increase in the call volume for the Lifeline over the first year of 988’s implementation.

The Lifeline has been underfunded and understaffed since its establishment. Despite an influx of federal funding from the Biden administration, states across the nation are still struggling to develop the infrastructure required to ensure all calls are answered.

As the launch of the new number approaches, Becerra says, “Failure is not an option.”

The hope for the new number, Becerra says, is, “If you are willing to turn to someone in your moment of crisis, 988 will be there. 988 won’t be a busy signal and 988 won’t put you on hold.”

“You will get help,” he said. “That is the goal. That is the aspiration. And it doesn’t happen overnight.”

The Lifeline network consists of more than 200 call centers nationwide, which are funded largely at the state level. When Congress first designated 988 as the new Lifeline number in 2020, it gave states the authority to levy cell phone fees, similar to those in place for 911, to fund the service.

Only four states have implemented such taxes as of June 29, according to an analysis of state legislation around 988 from the National Academy for State Health Policy. Several other states have allocated general appropriations funding to assist with the launch of the new number.

Due to inconsistencies in funding at the state level, response rates also vary across state lines — a problem SAMHSA and HHS say they have been working to address ahead of the new number’s launch.

“There’s no reason, no excuse that a person in one state can get a good response and a person in another state gets a busy signal,” Becerra said.

The federal government previously allocated $105 million in funding to assist states and territories in preparing for the launch of the new number. An additional $177 million went toward funding the national backup centers that field calls unable to be answered at the local level.

Congress also recently authorized an additional $150 million for the Lifeline during Fiscal Year 2022 as part of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act — a legislative package focused on combating gun violence.

“President Biden has made it very clear” that mental health services are a “top priority,” Becerra said, but added it is incumbent on states to stand this system up long-term.

Asked by ABC News about efforts to increase workforce capacity to meet the expected jump in call volume and a timeline for a consistent answer rate across state lines, Becerra said, “We went in big early to make it work.”

“We need the states,” he continued. “We are essentially helping the states learn to crawl, walk and run.”

Dr. John Palmieri, acting director of 988 and Behavioral Health Crisis at SAMHSA, added, “States are in different places on this.”

SAMHSA has set “aspirational targets,” Palmieri said, of a 90% in-state response rate by 2023, “understanding that it’s going to take time to get there.”

While the national backup centers can take calls that local centers can’t answer, advocates say a local response is ideal as it allows callers to be given follow-up resources near them after a mental health crisis.

“It’s really important for us that when you call, you get someone who is near you,” Becerra said.

In an effort to encourage states to bolster their own funding and workforce commitments for the Lifeline, HHS and SAMHSA have been sending letters to governors for the last few months with their call answer rates.

“We wanted to make sure they knew what they were doing,” Becerra said, adding, “No governor is unaware of where their state stands.”

Long term, he said, “I hope [988] does become the place that people can go to be rescued.”

If you are struggling with thoughts of suicide or worried about a friend or loved one, help is available. Call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 [TALK] for free, confidential emotional support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The White House on Friday announced the next list of recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Olympic gymnast Simone Biles, gun control advocate Gabrielle Giffords and actor Denzel Washington are among the 17 individuals chosen to receive the nation’s highest civilian honor. The ceremony will take place at the White House on Thursday, July 7.

Late Sen. John McCain, a Purple Heart recipient who represented the state of Arizona in Congress for decades before succumbing to glioblastoma in 2018, will be awarded the honor posthumously.

Biden and McCain’s friendship dated back to the 1970s, and the two worked together on a number of issues during their time in the Senate. In 2018, Biden delivered a moving eulogy at McCain’s memorial service, stating “we will not see his like again.”

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs and former AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka also will receive posthumous awards.

President Joe Biden will be the first president to award the medals after already receiving one himself. Former President Barack Obama presented the medal to Biden in 2017, who was then serving as vice president.

“This honor is not only well beyond what I deserve, but it’s a reflection of the generosity of your spirit,” an emotional Biden told Obama during the ceremony. “I don’t deserve this. But I know it came from the president’s heart.”

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is awarded to people who have “made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

“These seventeen Americans demonstrate the power of possibilities and embody the soul of the nation – hard work, perseverance, and faith,” the White House said. “They have overcome significant obstacles to achieve impressive accomplishments in the arts and sciences, dedicated their lives to advocating for the most vulnerable among us, and acted with bravery to drive change in their communities – and across the world – while blazing trails for generations to come.”

Here’s a list of the other 11 Medal of Freedom recipients:

Sister Simone Campbell – Campbell is a member of Sisters of Social Service, and a prominent advocate for economic justice, immigration reform, and healthcare policy.

Dr. Julieta García – García was the first Hispanic woman to serve as a college president, having served in the top position at The University of Texas at Brownsville.

Fred Gray – Gray was one of the first Black members of the Alabama State legislature since Reconstruction, and a distinguished civil rights attorney whose clients included Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Father Alexander Karloutsos – Karloutsos is a former Vicar General of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, and as a priest provided counsel to several U.S. presidents

Khizr Khan – a Pakistani immigrant whose son was killed while serving in the U.S. Army, Khan served on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom under Biden.

Sandra Lindsay – Lindsay, a New York critical care nurse, was the first American to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Diane Nash – a founder of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Nash worked closely with King and other civil rights leaders.

Megan Rapinoe – a World Champion and Olympic soccer star, Rapinoe is also an advocate for gender pay equality, racial justice, and LGBTQI+ rights.

Alan Simpson – Simpson has served in the U.S. Senate for nearly two decades, leading on issues such as campaign finance reform and marriage equality.

Wilma Vaught – Vaught is one of the most decorated women in U.S. military history.

Raúl Yzaguirre – Yzaguirre is a civil rights advocate who served as CEO and president of National Council of La Raza for 30 years, and was once the U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Arizona Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema remains committed to upholding the Senate filibuster, a spokesperson said Friday, a day after President Joe Biden said he would support making an exception to codify abortion rights in federal law.

“Senator Sinema’s position on the filibuster has not changed,” the spokesperson told ABC News.

While West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin hasn’t weighed in specifically after Biden’s call, all signs are that he, too, remains opposed to such a carveout. Without the support of both Democrats, a change to the Senate rules is likely not possible.

Biden is under pressure to act on reproductive rights after the Supreme Court last Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision legalizing abortion access nationwide for the past five decades.

Biden on Thursday called the high court’s behavior “outrageous,” stating he supported an exception to the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to protect abortion rights.

“We have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law,” he said. “And the way to do that is to make sure Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way it’s like voting rights, it should be we provide an exception for this, except the required exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the Supreme Court decision.”

Biden earlier this year voiced support for a filibuster carveout to pass voting rights legislation, but that too faced opposition from Manchin and Sinema.

The administration has announced several steps aimed at safeguarding existing protections for women, such as protecting access for medication abortion and ensuring that pregnant patients can get emergency medical care. Earlier this week, Health Secretary Xavier Becerra said every option is being explored with top legal advisers.

But Biden’s acknowledged that such executive action can only go so far, stating it is ultimately up to Congress to enshrine abortion rights at the federal level.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Friday said “Democrats are fighting ferociously to enshrine Roe v Wade into law.”

But the party’s options remain extremely limited, so long as the Senate filibuster is intact.

When asked about Biden’s call for filibuster carveout, Sinema’s office referred ABC News to the op-ed the senator wrote last summer and her statement following the leaked Dobbs decision earlier this year. In both statements, Sinema affirmed her belief that the filibuster has been used to protect women’s rights.

“Protections in the Senate safeguarding against the erosion of women’s access to health care have been used half-a-dozen times in the past ten years, and are more important now than ever,” she said in the previous statement.

Manchin said last week, following the Supreme Court decision, that he was hopeful for a bipartisan solution.

When the draft abortion decision leaked in May, Manchin told reporters “the filibuster is the only protection of democracy.”

ABC News’ Allison Pecorin and Libby Cathey contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Republican lawmakers are proposing what they call “pro-family” platforms following the Supreme Court’s scrapping of the constitutional protections around abortion to try to help people who, in some states, could now be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio put out a sprawling framework last week, while Sens. Steve Daines of Montana, Mitt Romney of Utah and Richard Burr of North Carolina put out their own proposal pushing for a monthly cash stipend for working families pulled from other tax benefits.

Specific states have also touched on new or forthcoming tools for new parents, such as a website to connect moms with resources that South Dakota’s Republican Gov. Kristi Noem discussed on ABC’s This Week.

Yet implementing these small handful of new plans, which would institute policies that would be novel in some states, could prove easier said than done, critics and experts say — raising concerns over the resources that will be available for new parents in the 12 states and counting without access to abortion.

“This ruling and the result that people are going to be forced to have unplanned pregnancies and care for children that they weren’t planning for … means that people are going to be suffering economic consequences,” Amy Matsui, the director of income security and senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, told ABC News. “These plans nod to that fact, but don’t actually do anything to address it in a meaningful way.”

Among the top concern cited is a historic lack of investment in social safety net programs by states that are restricting or outlawing abortion.

An amicus brief filed by pro-abortion rights groups in the Supreme Court case that overturned constitutional abortion protections showed that 14 states with the most restrictive laws also demonstrated poor maternal and child health outcomes, including early need for prenatal care, low infant birthweight and infant mortality.

And while some early proposals appear intended to combat precisely those scenarios, experts warn that those trends indicate some states are on poor footing to implement any substantial solutions.

“When you look at the overlay, the states that have restricted or banned abortion are the same states that have not invested in their safety nets. They do not have the same kinds of supports for low-income families, for pregnant people, for health care, for child care, for supporting workers or for education that states that generally support abortion rights do,” said Elizabeth Nash, a state policy analyst at the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute.

“So basically, they are not providing the health care that people need or the supports that they need,” Nash said. “And now, sort of as an afterthought and because of public outcry, they’re saying, ‘OK, well, let’s pull together sort of a quick package.'”

To be sure, Republicans insist their plans are feasible, casting them as prudent proposals.

“For the past 50 years, our country built a massive, pro-abortion commercial infrastructure. There are commonsense, bipartisan steps we can take to support American families and protect life, instead of ending it,” Rubio said in a statement.

“This will be a big boost for parents and families that won’t increase the debt and will make federal policy work better for families across the nation — I hope to see all my colleagues get behind this plan,” Daines added.

But digging deeper, some experts expressed concern about the plans’ specific planks, warning that they would force pregnant people to make difficult choices.

Rubio’s plan, for instance, would allow new parents to invest in paid parental leave by pulling forward up to three months of their future Social Security benefits.

And in the proposal from Daines, Romney and Burr, the monthly cash benefit for working families is paid for by “consolidating the family portion of the [earned income tax credit] to not vary depending on the number of dependents” and eliminating the head of household filing status and child portion of the child and dependent care credit.

“That is great, and continuing to have an expanded child tax credit is important for the well-being of families and children,” Matsui said of a monthly cash benefit. “But to fund it by taking away the head of household filing status or restricting the EITC or taking away the child portion of the child and dependent care tax credit is basically robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

“Another example is the purported parental leave provision that is in Sen. Rubio’s package. It offers new parents the opportunity to borrow against their future Social Security benefits,” she added. “They need it now and they need it later. And we’re asking them to bear the cost rather than provide new and additional supports. It really is just kind of a shifting shell game.”

Rubio’s plan also offers expanded tax relief for adoptive parents, though activists said that does little to help someone during a pregnancy. The plan also includes a provision to “expand access to social services by lowering barriers to faith-based organizations’ participation,” but the experts who spoke with ABC News warned of past discriminatory language by such groups, particularly against the LGBTQ community.

“That is just completely inappropriate,” Nash said.

Experts did not disagree with every aspect of the plans. For instance, Nash called Rubio’s provision to boost the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (also known as WIC) and to extend the postpartum benefit eligibility period from one to two years “helpful.”

But overall, experts and critics spoke on the recently proposed plans with skepticism, chiefly over how novel their proposals are in some of the most impacted states.

“I think that even a really great plan, which I don’t think either of these are, even a really great plan that isn’t tested is a bad idea,” said Susan Polan, associate executive director of public affairs and advocacy at the American Public Health Association. “We can’t piecemeal it together and build the plane as we’re flying it.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s dramatic testimony this week has provided not only a new account of the actions of then-President Donald Trump and chief of staff Mark Meadows before and on Jan. 6, 2021, but it’s also raised questions about where the House select committee’s investigation will go next, including concerning Trump’s potential legal liability.

In a nearly two-hour hearing Tuesday, Hutchinson painted a picture of Trump, who, after speaking at his “Save America” rally on the Ellipse, insisted on being taken to the Capitol as Congress met to certify electoral votes, demanding to join his supporters, she said, despite having been told some were armed with weapons.

“I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, you know, “I don’t effing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in,” Trump said, according to Hutchinson. “They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in.”

Trump rushed to attack her credibility — but appeared to mostly dispute — not whether he knew the mob attacking the Capitol was armed — but whether, in a rage, he had grabbed the steering wheel of his presidential SUV or in anger had thrown his lunch against the White House dining room wall.

In a statement Wednesday, her lawyer said Hutchinson stands by all the testimony she gave under oath Tuesday.

The committee followed up Wednesday on Hutchinson’s account of what Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone said at the time, to her and to others, with a subpoena — and his team is negotiating the ultimate scope of the order for future testimony, sources told ABC News.

Addressing the last-minute nature of the Hutchinson hearing, Jan. 6 committee member Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Wednesday it was “critical” for the American public to hear her testimony “immediately,” adding that threats of witness intimidation, as well as the potential for her story to inspire others to come forward, were “an important part of our calculus.”

“We want to let people know that may be signaling or trying to influence witness testimony that we take that very seriously, that we will confront that, and if necessary, we will refer any kind of intimidation to the Justice Department,” Schiff said on “GMA3.” “We also want to be able to use this information to encourage other witnesses to come forward.”

Sources tell ABC News that Hutchinson was one of the witnesses who told the Jan. 6 committee she was pressured by allies of Donald Trump to protect the former president.

The committee and Hutchinson herself have not publicly confirmed this reporting.

How will Trump counsel Cipollone testify?

Cipollone is evaluating the subpoena and his team is negotiating with the committee on the parameters surrounding an eventual closed-door deposition, sources close to him told ABC News. They say they have an expectation that he and the committee will reach an agreement on the terms by the requested deposition date of next Wednesday, July 6, though sources emphasize the fluid nature of the talks.

Committee investigators are expected to ask Cipollone will be asked about his interactions with Trump on Jan. 6, knowledge of attempts from former top DOJ official Jeffrey Clark — whom Trump wanted to install as attorney general — to use the powers of the Justice Department to attempt to overturn the election, and interactions with former Trump election lawyer John Eastman and members of Congress after the election.

The information shared with the committee could be impacted by a number of factors, sources familiar with the deliberations said. That includes whether Trump’s presence in any of the past meetings could result in potential claims of executive privilege, or whether Cipollone could invoke attorney-client privilege on certain matters as the top lawyer in the White House.

A lawyer familiar with Cipollone’s deliberations told ABC News Wednesday, in response to the committee’s announcement: “Of course a subpoena was necessary before the former White House counsel could even consider transcribed testimony before the committee,” and that now it will “be evaluated as to matters of privilege that might be appropriate.”

Cipollone and former deputy White House counsel, Pat Philbin, who was also part of a Jan. 3, 2021, Oval Office meeting, during which Trump insisted on replacing then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Clark, sat for an informal interview with committee investigators in April — but members are eager to speak with Cipollone again after Hutchinson described firsthand accounts of what she said were his warnings.

Hutchinson told the committee that on the morning of Jan. 6, before Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, Cipollone was adamant that Trump shouldn’t go to the Capitol after his speech at the rally on the Ellipse.

“We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen,” she said Cipollone warned her at the time.

She also recalled Cipollone rushing into Meadows’ office in the West Wing as rioters breached the building.

“I remember Pat saying something to the effect of ‘Mark, we need to do something more. They’re literally calling for the vice president to be f—— hung,'” Hutchinson said in taped testimony.

She said that Meadows replied, “You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong,” to which Cipollone said, according to Hutchinson, “Mark, something needs to be done, or people are going to die and the blood’s gonna be on your f—— hands.”

Chairman Bennie Thompson said the committee has also requested to speak with Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who took back her apparent offer to speak with the committee this week when her attorney sent a letter to the committee saying he wants “a better justification for why Mrs. Thomas’s testimony is relevant.”

Thomas urged Arizona lawmakers in emails obtained by ABC News to help reverse Biden’s victory — suggesting that the conservative activist played a larger role in pushing to overturn the election than was previously publicly known.

What happened inside Trump’s SUV?

A secondhand account Hutchinson gave Tuesday was a shocking story about how Trump allegedly reached for the steering wheel in trying to get to the Capitol after his Ellipse speech — and prompted immediate pushback.

Hutchinson recalled being told how Trump turned “irate” as he was driven away from the Ellipse after being told by his security that he could not go to the Capitol with his supporters.

Though she was not in the SUV at the time, she said she heard the account from Tony Ornato, a senior Secret Service official who was at the time White House deputy chief of staff for operations, when everyone was back at the White House. Also in the room was Bobby Engel, the head of Trump’s security detail who was in the SUV with Trump and, according to Hutchinson, did not speak up to dispute any of Ornato’s account.

“The president said something to the effect of, ‘I’m the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now’ — to which Bobby responded, ‘Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing,'” she testified she was told. “The president reached up toward the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm and said, ‘Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing. We’re not going to the Capitol.’

“Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge toward Bobby Engel and when Mr. Ornato recounted this story to me, he motioned toward his clavicles,” she said.

In a rare statement after her testimony, the Secret Service reiterated that it had been cooperating with the House committee and intended to keep doing so, “including by responding on the record” to Hutchinson’s testimony. The agency issued another statement Wednesday saying that agents are prepared to give sworn testimony.

Two sources familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas that Trump had indeed requested to go to Capitol on Jan. 6 and that the Secret Service refused due to security concerns. One of those sources said that when the former president returned to his vehicle after his speech at the Ellipse and asked Engel if he could go to the Capitol, Engel responded by saying, essentially, that it was unwise. But sources pushed back against any allegation that Trump reached for the steering wheel or assaulted an agent.

A Jan. 6 committee aide told ABC News Wednesday, “The committee welcomes anyone who wishes to provide additional information under oath.”

How is Hutchinson’s boss Mark Meadows responding?

Cheney also asked Hutchinson whether Meadows himself ever indicated he was interested in a pardon, after she previously ticked off several GOP lawmakers in a taped deposition who Hutchinson said were in contact with the White House about “blanket pardons” after Jan. 6.

Each lawmaker named has denied the allegation.

“Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon,” she testified under Cheney’s questioning.

A Meadows spokesperson said he “never sought a pardon and never planned to,” but did not make clear in the short statement whether Meadows raised the possibility with colleagues or even informally entertained the idea of such an ask.

Cheney told “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl in an exclusive interview that she is “absolutely confident” in Hutchinson’s testimony and credibility.

ABC News’ Katherine Faulders, John Santucci and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) – The Supreme Court announced Thursday it will hear a case this fall that could upend state election laws across the country.

Moore v. Harper focuses on a new North Carolina voting map created by court-appointed experts after earlier maps proposed by the Republican-led state legislature were struck down.

The North Carolina Supreme Court in February ruled that the maps offered by the state general assembly were partisan gerrymanders, violating free speech, free assembly and equal protection provisions of the state constitution.

But the state legislature appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to take up the issue of redistricting and possibly restore the Republican-drawn map.

Central to the petitioners’ argument is the so-called “inde­pend­ent state legis­lature” theory — a fringe legal concept pushed by a small group of conservative advocates that would give state legislatures broad authority to run federal elections without the traditional oversight from a state constitution or judiciary, whom these advocates argue have no right to intrude on elected representatives.

Observers say there could be major ramifications from the Supreme Court’s eventual decision.

“This has the potential to change the rules of the game in far-reaching ways in time for the next presidential election,” ABC News Political Director Rick Klein said. “Depending on how far the Supreme Court goes, it could virtually invite Republican-controlled legislatures to rewrite centuries-old laws ensuring that the candidate who gets the most votes in a state gets its electoral votes — and it even could free legislatures to pick electors on their own.”

“It could wind up making it far easier for a future state legislature to actually do what Trump allies so desperately wanted done in the messy aftermath of the 2020 election,” Klein added.

The “inde­pend­ent state legis­lature” theory argues that under the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause and Electors Clause, state legislators can determine how elections are conducted without checks and balances from the other governmental actors such as state constitutions, courts or gubernatorial vetoes.

The Elec­tions Clause reads, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [choosing] Senators.”

The Elect­ors Clause states that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

The Electors Clause was central to the unsuccessful plot by former President Donald Trump and his allies to use “fake electors” to overturn his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.

Thomas Wolf, deputy director with the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, said the theory contradicts the intent of the Constitution’s framers.

“It’s contrary to 200-plus years of practice, the way we actually run elections, and it’s contrary to over a century’s worth of Supreme Court precedent,” Wolf told ABC News. “It’s also just disastrous as a policy matter.”

Wolf warned that the argument, if accepted by the high court, could lead to the elimination of protections against discrimination for voting and strip election administrators of their ability to efficiently run and regulate elections.

The North Carolina Supreme Court said back in February that the theory would “produce absurd and dangerous consequences.”

North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case, stating on Thursday that he was “confident” the justices would agree with their view that the U.S. Constitution “explicitly gives the General Assembly authority to draw districts.”

“This case is not only critical to election integrity in North Carolina, but has implications for the security of elections nationwide,” Moore argued.

The Supreme Court first confronted the case in March, when North Carolina’s state legislature sought emergency relief. The justices ultimately denied that request, but three conservative on the bench said they would have granted a stay of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s order.

“This case presents an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law, namely, the extent of a state court’s authority to reject rules adopted by a state legislature for use in conducting federal elections,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the dissent. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

Helen White, counsel at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, in a press call Thursday noted the Supreme Court ruled on the matter of partisan gerrymandering just three years ago.

In Rucho v. Common Cause, the court said while it wouldn’t step in to police partisan gerrymandering, state courts and constitutions were a means of regulating gerrymandering in congressional elections.

White said if the court were now to adopt the “independent state legislature” theory, it would be a “radical pivot from what they themselves have said about the issues in this case.”

Moore v. Harper will be argued before the nine justices in the term beginning this October, with a decision handed down in time for the 2024 campaign.

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas took aim at Sesame Street’s “Elmo” after the popular children’s show puppet promoted COVID-19 vaccines for children on Twitter.

A minute-long clip posted on the show’s Twitter page showed Elmo speaking with his loving TV puppet dad, Louie, about feeling “a little pinch” when got a shot. Louie then says he had questions about Elmo getting the vaccine, which he took to Elmo’s pediatrician.

“I learned that Elmo getting vaccinated is the best way to keep himself, our friends, neighbors, and everyone else healthy and enjoying the things they love,” Louie said.

“Elmo” retweeted the original tweet from the Sesame Street page, echoing that his vaccination will benefit his loved ones.

But the puppet’s message didn’t sit well with the junior senator from Texas.

Cruz took to Twitter where he said Elmo “aggressively” advocates for vaccinating young children without citing scientific evidence.

The senator’s tweet linked to a June press release in which Cruz announced he and 17 fellow members of Congress called on the Food and Drug Administration to answer 19 questions about the COVID-19 vaccine for kids.

“Why has the FDA recently lowered the efficacy bar for COVID vaccines for youngest children?” one question asks.

While the Sesame Street video with Elmo and Louie does not directly offer scientific evidence for the COVID-19 children’s vaccine, a voice promotes asking questions about the vaccine and directs viewers to GetVaccineAnswers.org at the end of the video.

“Thanks, @sesamestreet for saying parents are allowed to have questions!” Cruz wrote, in an apparent flippant reaction.

The website mentioned in the Sesame Street video offers that research and clinical trials demonstrate the vaccine is safe and effective for children.

This is not the first time Cruz has gone after a Sesame Street character online.

In November, Elmo’s fellow Sesame Street puppet, Big Bird, tweeted about getting the COVID-19 vaccine. At the time, Cruz called it “government propaganda.”

Cruz’s latest attack on a muppet comes less than two weeks after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention approved the nationwide rollout of COVID-19 vaccines for children older than six months.

On Wednesday, the U.S. government bought 105 million COVID-19 shots from Pfizer for $3.2 billion with a late summer to fall delivery date.

Pfizer and Moderna produce the two vaccines approved for children under five years old.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In the wake of the apparent worst human smuggling tragedy in U.S. history, and amid migrants crossing the border at record levels, frustration among border patrol agents and other law enforcement on the ground is “earned,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said.

“Our Border Patrol agents, you know, their morale is down. And I understand why,” he told Fraternal Order of Police President Patrick Yoes on a podcast this week sponsored by FOP, one of the largest police unions in the country.

Migrants have been streaming across the border and getting taken into custody at record levels since the start of the year — averaging well over 200,000 apprehensions a month.

Mayorkas touched on the catastrophe earlier this week on the outskirts of San Antonio, Texas, that left more than 50 migrants dead after being trapped in a broiling tractor-trailer — saying it shows the danger of human smuggling organizations that charge desperate people to transport them across the border illegally.

“We have 50 people dead, some of whom are children. And that just exhibits the cruelty of the smuggling organizations and why we need an all of government and are executing an all of government attack against them,” he said. “It’s getting hotter. And the journeys that much more dangerous we got to that to break it up no doubt.”

Two men have been charged by the Justice Department with human smuggling for their alleged role in transporting migrants who ultimately died near San Antonio.

Mayorkas has said DHS has been out front on combatting human smuggling operations, establishing a task force to aggressively combat cartel smuggling operations.

He also placed blame on other countries, saying they need to secure their borders and making the case the U.S. cannot be the first line of defense for border security. He said there’s a need to limit how much time it takes to adjudicate the average asylum case, which he said now can take six to eight years under the current structure.

Along the border, he said there’s been an increase in drugs being interdicted thanks to new non-invasive technology that is able to identify drugs through ports of entry.

Mayorkas also said he is “concerned” about funding streams for local law enforcement, and while directly not naming any cities, noted some have decreased their law enforcement budgets.

“We need to be resourced and local law enforcement needs to be resourced to match the level of crime that we’re all encountering,” he said. “We have a tough time recruiting personnel because law enforcement is under attack.”

Mayorkas, a federal prosecutor before joining DHS, said he sees people “making bail” that wouldn’t have otherwise made bail when he was at the Justice Department.

“An individual commits a crime with a firearm, that’s a tough bail to make back in the day. And yet I you know, in speaking with police officers and deputy sheriffs in different parts of the country, I hear about people making bail pending trial. And I think that creates a danger,” he said.

Mayorkas also touched on the root causes of recent mass shootings, including in Buffalo, New York, and Uvadle, Texas, and warning signs mass shooters might exhibit.

“I got to tell you that these narratives right spread so fast. Now, on social media, online platforms, you know, people are inspired by, you know, the massacre in New Zealand a number of years ago, and they learn of it on social media,” he said. “Such a small percentage of people with mental health concerns actually, commit those violent acts. But those violent acts do so much damage in our country.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.