Politics

The 2024 primary season begins with Donald Trump well ahead of his Republican opponents on key measures of popularity, while Joe Biden’s job approval rating has dropped to a low for any president in the past 15 years, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds.

With the Iowa caucuses Monday, the national survey finds Trump especially well rated by Republicans and Republican-leaning independents on three metrics: having the best chance to win in November, being a strong leader and being the party’s most qualified candidate.

Trump also leads his Republican opponents, by less of a margin, on two other attributes — empathy (i.e., understanding the problems of people like you) and shared values. And seven in 10 Republicans and GOP leaners report a favorable opinion of Trump overall.

In all, 72% of Republican-aligned adults would be satisfied with Trump as the nominee, similar to 75% in May. Sixty-one percent would be satisfied with Ron DeSantis. Others score lower — Nikki Haley, satisfactory to 48%; Vivek Ramaswamy, 44%; Chris Christie (who withdrew Wednesday), 23%; and Asa Hutchinson, 17%.

See PDF for full results.

Satisfaction is harder to find among political moderates, who account for about three in 10 Republicans and GOP leaners. They’re 21 points less likely than conservatives to express satisfaction with Trump, 30 points on DeSantis and 22 points on Ramaswamy. These gaps essentially disappear for Haley, Christie and Hutchinson.

Compared with Trump on the Republican side, considerably fewer Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would be satisfied with Biden as their party’s nominee, 57% — a reflection of his weak ratings overall and on issues including the economy and immigration.

This survey was produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos Public Affairs via its online, probability-based KnowledgePanel®. Past polls used for comparison were conducted by telephone, with efforts in this study to minimize differences; that said, mode effects may be a factor in some cases. The survey, fielded in English and Spanish, includes a robust sample of 2,228 respondents.

GOP CONTEST — Trump’s advantages in the Republican contest are particularly striking in terms of perceived electability and leadership. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents say he’s the candidate with the best chance of getting elected in November. That plummets to 12% for Haley, 11% for DeSantis and single digits for the rest.

Nearly as many, 65%, peg Trump as the strongest leader in the GOP lineup, again dropping precipitously for his opponents.

Fewer, but still 54%, say he is the candidate best qualified to serve as president. Fewer than half, 46%, say he best understands the problems of people like them and essentially as many, 45%, pick Trump as the candidate who best represents their own personal values. DeSantis and Haley score in the teens on these measures.

An additional 10% pick Ramaswamy as the candidate who best understands their problems. On all other measures, preferences for Ramaswamy, former candidate Christie and Hutchinson all are in single digits.

DeSantis and Haley trail Trump in favorability as well. Compared with Trump’s 71%, 60% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents see DeSantis favorably and 46% say the same for Haley. After all her months of campaigning, 22% still don’t offer an opinion of Haley; it’s 13% for DeSantis, vs. 1% for Trump.

There are some notable differences among groups. Republicans and GOP-leaners who have a four-year college degree are less likely than non-graduates to say Trump is best on each of the attributes tested. Most strikingly, just 27% of those with a college degree say Trump best understands the problems of people like them, compared with 57% of those without a four-year degree. There’s a similar 27-point gap by education in saying Trump “best represents your own personal values,” 24 points in saying he’s best qualified, 16 points in seeing him as the strongest leader and 10 points in seeing him as most electable.

Additionally, white evangelical Protestants, a core Republican group, are 11 points less apt than their non-evangelical counterparts to say Trump best represents their values, 40% vs. 51%, a slight difference given sample sizes. At the same time, Trump’s overall favorability rating is higher among evangelicals than in other religious groups, suggesting they’re using a different gauge than shared values to assess him.

BIDEN/TRUMP — A Biden/Trump general election, if that’s the outcome of the primary season, would represent a battle of markedly unpopular candidates. Among all adults, Biden’s approval rating is just 33% in this poll, worse than Trump’s low as president (36%) and the lowest since George W. Bush from 2006-2008. Fifty-eight percent disapprove of Biden’s work.

Among groups, just 31% of women now approve of Biden’s work in office, a new low (as do 34% of men). He won 57% of women in 2020.

He’s at 28% approval among independents, a customary swing voter group; a low of 32% among moderates; and a low of 41% among college graduates, 10 points off his career average in that group.

Further, Biden’s approval rating is 21 points below average among Black people and 15 points below average among Hispanic people, compared with 6 points among white people; more Black people, in particular, offer no opinion.

There’s a striking difference among Black people by age in their views of Biden: He has an approval rating of 65% among Black people age 50 and up, dropping sharply to 32% among Black people younger than 50. Age gaps are not apparent among white or Hispanic people.

Trump’s retrospective job rating is better than Biden’s, but still not positive — looking back, 41% approve of how he handled his presidency, a 7-point drop from four months ago. That includes a 13-point drop among men, with no meaningful change among women; and a 10-point drop among independents.

Another issue for Trump is the question of his ballot access. As reported Friday, 56% of Americans think the U.S. Supreme Court should either order Trump off the ballot in all states (30%) or let each state decide on its own (26%), given his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

FAVORABILITY AND ATTRIBUTES — Personal assessments are about equally negative for both men. Just 33% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Biden — down sharply from 50% the summer before the 2020 election — and about as few, 35%, express a favorable view of Trump. (It’s 28% for DeSantis and Haley alike.)

Biden leads Trump, by 15 points, in one of three attributes tested in the survey — being honest and trustworthy. Forty-one percent say this describes Biden, vs. 26% who say it applies to Trump. That’s down from a high of 38% for Trump, last reached in April 2017, three months into his presidency, and it’s a point from his low on honesty and trustworthiness.

Trump comes back, though, with advantages in two other areas. Forty-seven percent say he has the mental sharpness it takes to serve effectively as president, compared with 28% who say this of Biden. And more, 57%, say Trump has the physical health necessary to serve, again compared with 28% for Biden.

Trump’s ratings for mental sharpness and physical health both are down 7 points from last May. Similarly, Biden’s rating for health is down 5 points, and for mental sharpness, 4 points.

THIRD PARTY? — If Biden and Trump were the major-party nominees, 37% say they’d be likely to seriously consider a third-party candidate for president. Fewer, however, say they’d be very likely to do so – 15%. Results are identical among registered voters.

Readiness to seriously consider a third-party candidate in a Biden-Trump rematch peaks at 51% among independent women and moderate women alike. It’s 11 points higher among 2020 Biden voters than 2020 Trump voters, 37 vs. 26%. At the same time, it’s 46% among those who did not vote in 2020, a group that’s less likely than others to turn out this year.

ECONOMY/ISSUES — Broad economic discontent is a key force in current political attitudes. Given 2022’s 40-year high in inflation, just 13% of Americans now say they’ve gotten better off financially since Biden took office; 43% instead say they’re not as well off, a point from the 37-year record set in September. For comparison, in the middle of Trump’s term in office, just one-third as many people, 13%, said they were not as well off.

It follows that just 31% approve of how Biden is handling the economy, while 56% disapprove.

Another question explores why economic attitudes are so glum. Given a choice, 24% say “the economy is in good shape, given low unemployment and rising wages.” Far more — 71% — say “the economy is in bad shape, given higher prices and interest rates.”

unhappy with the economy are more likely to criticize the incumbent president. People who are aligned with the incumbent president are less apt to criticize the economy. So it is in this poll; 90% of Republicans say the economy is in bad shape, as do 74% of independents, compared with 49% of Democrats.

That said, Biden has a tepid 65% approval rating among Democrats for handling the economy, a career low.

The economy isn’t Biden’s only shortfall. His rating for handling immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border is especially low — just 18% approve, about half what it was in spring 2021, while 63% now disapprove. Biden has the lowest rating on immigration for any president in past ABC News/Washington Post polls to ask the question since January 2004 (with various changes over time in question wording).

Biden also gets a poor rating for handling the war between Israel and Hamas, with 26% approving and 48% disapproving; a substantial 25% don’t express an opinion.

That result might reflect frustration with the situation, not so much with Biden, since 43% also say the United States is doing about the right amount to support Israel and 39% say it’s doing about the right amount to help protect Palestinian civilians – both well higher than Biden’s approval for handling the situation.

About three in 10 say the United States is doing too much to support Israel; about two in 10 say it’s doing too little. These are roughly reversed in terms of protecting Palestinian civilians.

Thirty-seven percent of white evangelical Protestants think the U.S. is doing too little to support Israel, well higher than this view in other religious groups. Sample sizes of Muslims and Jews are too small for reliable analysis.

A final result, also on the international front, suggests an easing in criticism of U.S. support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. The share of Americans saying the United States is doing too much to support Ukraine rose from 14% in April 2022 to 41% in September; it’s down to 34% in this poll. An open question is whether that reflects recognition of Ukraine’s need for help — or the fact that further aid has been blocked in Congress.

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® Jan. 4-8, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,228 adults. Partisan divisions are 25-25-41 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 2.5 percentage points, including the design effect, for the full sample. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.

The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, with sampling and data collection by Ipsos. See details on the survey’s methodology here.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(IOWA) — Weather continues to impact the schedule of presidential candidates heading into the Iowa caucuses as former President Donald Trump has now canceled three out of his four in-person commit to caucus rallies.

Instead, Trump will hold a series of telerallies and is still expected to go forward with his in-person appearance at his commit to caucus rally in Indianola, Iowa.

“I’ll get there sometime around Saturday night or something, one way or the other I’m getting there. You have the worst weather I guess in recorded history, but maybe that’s good because our people are more committed than anyone else,” Trump said in a video message posted on X shortly after his campaign announced the schedule adjustments.

The video comes as the campaign had to cancel four surrogate events they had planned this week as Trump made voluntary court appearances on Tuesday and Thursday.

Trump was in Iowa on Wednesday for a Fox News town hall, but his last campaign event was on Jan. 6, where he delivered remarks in Newton and Clinton.

The four-stop Iowa swing this weekend would have served as the final boost for Trump in the final days of Iowa caucuses, during an election cycle when the former president has had a lighter campaign schedule compared to some of his GOP rivals.

So far this cycle, Trump has visited Iowa 21 times, compared to other Republican presidential hopefuls, who have visited the Hawkeye state dozens of times.

Yet still, Trump remained determined on Friday to make the most out of the situation.

“It’s gonna be a little bit of a trek. Nobody knows how exactly we’re gonna get there, but we’re gonna figure it out,” Trump continued in his video message.

Just as the campaign was announcing the cancelation of his rallies, Trump joined conservative radio show “The Mark Levin Show” to explain that he had to cancel the events because of the weather.

Now, Trump is scheduled to join three telerallies this weekend: One each on Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Also on Monday – ahead of the caucuses – Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle are scheduled to campaign on behalf of Trump in Ankeny.

As the state braces for dangerous sub-zero temperatures and a once-in-a-decade blizzard, Trump and his team have remained confident at his chances at clinching the Hawkeye state while also tempering expectations.

“First of all, a win, a win is a win but anything over 12 [points] I think is a great night,” Trump senior campaign adviser Chris LaCivita told reporters Wednesday.

And despite the severe weather, Trump supporters ABC News spoke with were undeterred about going out to caucus for him on Jan. 15

“I’m definitely going to be there,” Nancy Iveling from Johnson, Iowa, who volunteers for the campaign, told ABC News. “We pray that the other people will show up too, regardless of the weather because this is an important cause and we need to win this race.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Friday publicly faulted Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin for not informing him earlier that he was hospitalized for complications from cancer treatment.

When a reporter asked Biden whether it was “a lapse in judgment for him not to tell you earlier,” Biden replied, “Yes.”

At the same time, when asked by a reporter if he still had confidence in Austin, Biden replied he did.

Biden made his first comments on the controversy while visiting small businesses in battleground Pennsylvania on Friday.

Austin and the Pentagon are under immense scrutiny for initially keeping the White House and others in the dark for days about his health. The defense secretary underwent a minimally invasive surgical procedure for prostate cancer Dec. 22, which led to a urinary tract infection and serious intestinal complications.

Austin remained hospitalized this week, as the U.S. planned and led a coalition of retaliatory strikes against Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen over the group’s attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea.

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters Friday Austin’s performance was “seamless.”

“His participation was no different than it would be on any other given day, except that he was briefing the president on options and engaged in the discussions from the hospital,” Kirby said. “But he was fully engaged as he would be in any other event.”

The Pentagon, too, emphasized his role in the significant strikes against the Houthis — who’ve voted to retaliate.

Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Department of Defense press secretary, said Austin had two conversations with President Biden as well as daily calls with other officials about how to respond to the Houthis and how to execute the strikes.

“Then yesterday afternoon, the secretary gave the order to Central Command to initiate those strikes, and then monitored in real time with a full suite of secure communications,” Ryder said.

Austin, in a statement on the strikes against the Houthis, said the action was intended to disrupt the group’s abilities by targeting their unmanned aerial vehicle, uncrewed surface vessel, land-attack cruise missile and costal radar and air surveillance capabilities

He said the move “sends a clear message to the Houthis that they will bear further costs if they do not end their illegal attacks.”

The Pentagon’s communications breakdown when it came to Austin’s hospitalization is being independently investigated by the Department of Defense inspector general. The Pentagon has also ordered its own 30-day review of the circumstances, and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee launched a formal inquiry.

ABC News’ Fritz Farrow and Selina Wang contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The next week in Congress will be consumed by efforts to keep the lights on as Congress — for the third time in the past year — is running up against a funding deadline that could lead to a government shutdown.

With each looming deadline, the stakes grow higher and the politics more winding.

Here’s a quick catch up on where we are, and what’s at stake, a Friday’s funding deadline looms.

When is the government slated to shut down?

This upcoming funding deadline is unlike others we’ve seen because there are two different looming deadlines. This is because of the way House Speaker Mike Johnson crafted the last short-term bill that has been funding the government since mid-November.

The government is funded through 12 individual spending bills. When Congress needs more time to pass them, they often use a stopgap measure to bump back the expiration deadlines for all 12 of those bills.

But in November, Congress split them up.

So, on Friday, Jan. 19, funding will run out for programs under four of the 12 bills: Agriculture, Energy and Water, Military Construction-Veterans Affaifs, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development.

If Congress doesn’t act to extend funds for those four bills by Friday, there will be a partial government shutdown.

Programs under the other eight bills, including defense spending, are currently slated to run out of funds two weeks later, on Feb. 2.

So what is Congress going to do to try to avert a shutdown?

This Congress, Republicans made it a goal to try to return the government funding process to regular order by passing the 12 appropriations bills individually. They’ve missed their deadline to do it twice, and are coming up on a third.

As was the case with the last two funding deadlines, the four bills that are running out of funds aren’t ready to be voted on yet, and Congress won’t be able to pass them before Friday. So increasingly, the Senate has signaled it’s going to once again aim to buy itself some additional time by punting the funding deadlines with a stop-gap measure.

On Thursday, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer teed the Senate up to take a procedural vote on a bill that would move the funding deadline when it returns to Washington on Tuesday. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Congress would “obviously” have to pass such a measure to keep the government open while lawmakers continue to toil over the final versions of appropriations bills.

It’s not yet clear how long of an extension the Senate will seek, or whether the stopgap bill they aim to push through this week will affect the four bills expiring on Friday or all 12.

What’s also unclear is whether Johnson is prepared to get his wily conference in order to move a stopgap measure through the House, where it’ll be a harder-fought battle.

Johnson previously said he would not approve any additional short-term funding bills, but Johnson also said he does not want the government to shut down next week. Given the crush that Congress is now under, he’ll likely have to make a choice.

It should be noted that a small contingent of Republicans are actually advocating for a shutdown. Because of the razor-thin Republican majority in the House, if Johnson does move on a short-term spending bill, he’ll need the help of House Democrats to pass it.

But wait, I thought a government funding deal was reached. Why won’t that stop a shutdown?

There was a pretty significant breakthrough in negotiations over full-year spending bills on Sunday. While a major step forward in getting the government funded, that deal won’t be done and dusted by Friday’s funding deadline.

Still, the deal, announced jointly by Schumer, Johnson and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, tees appropriators up to finally complete their work after months of squabbling between the House and Senate about how much all of the 12 government funding bills should cost.

The deal sets top-line spending for fiscal year 2024 at $1.65 trillion, the amount originally agreed to by President Joe Biden and then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy during negotiations over the government’s debt limit last year. It preserves amounts for both defense and non-defense discretionary spending that Biden and McCarthy agreed on.

The question now is how long it will take appropriators to turn that handshake agreement into bills that can be voted on and passed. It’ll certainly be longer than the week until a partial shutdown.

In the days since the deal was agreed upon, Democrats have been touting it as a home run for their priorities that beat back GOP efforts to exact spending cuts.

“Both parties reached this agreement without resorting to the painful and draconian cuts that the hard-right, particularly those in the Freedom Caucus, clamored for,” Schumer said on the Senate floor earlier this week. “The hard-right wanted to put a chopping block on programs that helped millions of Americans.”

Johnson, meanwhile, has emphasized what he sees as wins for Republicans in the deal: claw-backs of about $6 billion in COVID-19 relief funds and an expedited $10 billion cut in funding to the IRS.

The speaker said the deal would allow Republicans to continue to fight for “conservative objectives” to be included in spending bills, but Schumer has vowed to push back on those “poison pill” additions.

How are Republicans reacting to that deal?

This doesn’t look great for Johnson.

After the top-line spending deal was announced last week, Johnson’s hard-liners were out in force bashing the deal for failing to exact the steep cuts to the federal budget they had hoped to secure.

In a closed-door meeting on Thursday, many urged the speaker to renegotiate the deal, but Johnson ultimately stood by it.

“Our top-line agreement remains. We are getting our next steps together — and we are working toward a robust appropriations process. So, stay tuned for that to develop,” Johnson said.

The move has been enough to anger his right flank, creating a potential vulnerability for Johnson. Former Speaker McCarthy was ousted from his position atop the conference for taking similar moves to keep the government open without demanding spending cuts.

There does not seem to be as much of an appetite from House Republicans to dethrone Johnson this time around. He’s been in the role for less than three months.

But Johnson will likely have to do something to regain favor with his most right-leaning members, or he could face some sort of repercussion.

What about the southern border and Ukraine aid?

Congress has for months been negotiating over border policy changes in hopes that an agreement over them will unlock Republican support for additional aid to Ukraine and Israel, something Republicans conditioned their support upon.

As those negotiations continue, they do so both separate and apart from the ongoing debate over government spending.

But as tension around both issue areas heats up, some Republicans have sought to tie them together by calling for a government shutdown until the condition at the southern border improves.

“The border — is it something a beach worth dying on — I say yes it is,” Rep. Tim Burchette, a Tennessee Republican, said Friday.

But many Republicans want the two to remain separate, as do Democrats who are working to negotiate a border deal.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who has been leading Senate negotiations over border policy changes, said those threatening to cause a shutdown over the border were likely never going to support either a bipartisan border or a government funding bill in the first place.

“That’s coming from Republicans who will never ever vote for a border deal, a Ukraine funding deal or a budget,” Murphy said. “So like, at some point, you have to know who the coalition of the willing is, and their opinions really matter, and there’s Republicans and Democrats that are willing to compromise on border and on budget. There are some that aren’t. And so we’ve got to listen to the people that are actually willing to compromise.”

ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel have riled commercial shipping and threatened to dangerously escalate heightened tensions in the Middle East.

On Thursday, the U.S. and the U.K. led a large-scale, retaliatory strike against the militants, hoping to degrade their ability to carry out attacks on vital waterways. But the group is already vowing to hit back.

Who are the Houthis, who are their allies, and what do they hope to achieve? Can the U.S. and allies contain the threat the militants pose to the region?

Officials and analysts break it down.

Rebels and de facto rulers in Yemen

The Houthis are a Shiite political and military organization that took form in Yemen during the 1990s as an opposition force to the Yemeni government.

Through the years, the group became increasingly inspired by anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments coursing through the Middle East.

In 2011, the Houthis played a major role in sparking the Yemeni Revolution, which was born out of a wave of anti-government protests and uprisings known as the Arab Spring.

The revolution forced a transfer of power, but the Houthis were displeased with the newly installed leaders and in 2014 the group took control of Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, prompting an ongoing civil war that has ravaged the country.

A Saudi-led coalition intervened in the conflict with the stated goal of restoring the former rulers to power, but Yemen remains fractured. The Houthis retain control of Sanaa and large swaths of territory in western Yemen, but the group has failed to accomplish its aim of becoming the country’s internationally recognized government.

The Yemeni civil war entered a cooling period in 2022, when the United Nations brokered a ceasefire between the warring parties. The conditions of the truce have largely held, but U.S. officials are concerned that reverberations from Israeli-Hamas war could lead to a rekindling of hostilities.

Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance’

As the Houthis’ control over Yemen has grown, so has the complexity and depth of their arsenal — thanks to Iran, which has assembled an informal network of anti-American, anti-Israeli proxies dubbed “The Axis of Resistance.”

Analysts say Iran capitalizes on groups like the Houthis, as well as designated terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, to conduct indirect, irregular warfare against its enemies– allowing Tehran to more effectively battle against better equipped adversaries like the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

“The Iranians have been supporting the Houthis for more than a decade, probably at a pace of about $100 million per year,” said Jon B. Alterman, a former State Department official and the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for International Strategic and International Studies.

“One of the Iranian government’s innovations in recent years has been to support regional forces that they do not actually control. Their efforts are attributable but deniable, and the Iranians feel they enjoy benefits without paying the costs,” he continued.

Trouble in the Red Sea

During the most intense years of Yemen’s civil war, the Houthis stockpiled improved drone technology, advanced munitions, and anti-ship missiles provided by Iran–using the weapons to strike at their common enemy, Saudi Arabia, and its coalition.

Though they were still outgunned, the Houthis were able to launch effective strikes against Saudi Arabian oil tankers and disrupt the flow of oil and other resources to and from the immediate region.

In the aftermath of Hamas’ attack on Israel, the Houthis have repurposed that strategy, launching attacks on more than two dozen ships transiting through commercial lanes in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, according to U.S. Central Command.

The group also seized a Japanese vehicle carrier as well as its 25-person crew in November and is still holding the ship and the seafarers hostage.

The Houthis claim their aggression in the Red Sea is in support of the Palestinians, that militants are only targeting vessels with ties to Israel and say the attacks will only stop when the Israeli siege of Gaza ends.

However, according to the governments of U.S. and Israel as well as international registries that track commercial shipping movements, many of the vessels that have come under Houthi fire are not linked to Israel at all.

After carrying out strikes on sites used by the Houthis to launch maritime strikes, the Pentagon said there were “early indications are that the Houthis’ ability to threaten merchant shipping has taken a blow.”

But the Houthi’s weapon systems are mobile and can be launched from small watercraft and trucks, so U.S. officials anticipate the group has retained ample firepower to follow through on its promise to retaliate for Thursday’s bombardment and perhaps continue its assault on commercial waterways.

“Targeting weapons storage depots is how the administration is trying to handicap the Houthis. But it remains to be seen what missiles and drones the Houthis have in store,” said Benham Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“Wars of the Middle East these days are all about resolve, and the Houthis have the intention to carry out their campaign,” he added.

Tehran may also be motivated to increase their support to the Houthis. A spokesperson for Iran’s foreign ministry condemned the actions of the U.S. and U.K. militaries and warned that they would fuel “insecurity and instability” in the region, according to Iranian media reports.

Can the US do more?

The White House released a joint statement with allied powers on Thursday, promising the U.S. will not hesitate to strike again if the Houthis continue to wreak havoc in the Red Sea

“Let our message be clear: we will not hesitate to defend lives and protect the free flow of commerce in one of the world’s most critical waterways in the face of continued threats,” the statement reads.

But some U.S. officials are worried that continuing to exchange volleys with the Houthis will restart the simmering conflict in Yemen or inspire other belligerents—like Hezbollah—to ramp up its war against Israel, potentially prompting a regional war.

On Friday, the Biden administration announced a new wave of sanctions aimed at disrupting the flow of supplies and finances from Iran to the Houthis.

Administration officials also say there has been some deliberation over whether the Houthis should be officially labeled as a terrorist group, but there is concern that the legal limitations that accompany the designation would inhibit the peace process aimed at resolving the Yemeni civil war.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Friday defended ordering the U.S. military, in coordination with the United Kingdom and other partners, to carry out large-scale retaliatory strikes in Yemen against Iran-backed Houthi militants over their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea.

Speaking with reporters Friday afternoon on a trip to Pennsylvania, he called the strikes a “success” and said the U.S. will continue to respond if the Houthis keep up their “outrageous behavior.”

The Houthis have vowed revenge.

Asked for his message to Iran, Biden said, “I already delivered the message to Iran. They know not to do anything.”

When asked if the U.S. was in a de facto war with Iran, he said no. “Iran does not want a war with us.”

The strikes, intended to weaken the militants’ ability to continue targeting commercial vessels in the vital waterway, were being met with mixed reaction on Capitol Hill — even criticism from some Democrats in an election year when foreign policy can become a major issue.

Earlier, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said the administration is “not interested in a war with Yemen.”

“We’re not interested in a conflict of any kind here,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One. “In fact, everything the president has been doing has been trying to prevent any escalation of conflict, including the strikes last night.”

Some lawmakers, like Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Mike Johnson, welcomed the action as necessary but overdue.

“The United States and our allies must leave no room to doubt that the days of unanswered terrorist aggression are over,” McConnell said.

Others, including progressive Democrats and hard-line Republicans, are slamming Biden for acting alone without approval from Congress.

“This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in a social media post. “Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress.”

Kirby was asked by a reporter about the bipartisan group of lawmakers who contend Biden violated the War Powers resolution.

“We’re very comfortable and confident in the legal authorities that the president exercised to conduct these strikes,” he responded.

President Biden labeled the strikes as a “defensive action” taken in light of the 27 attacks initiated by Houthi militants in the Red Sea since November, which he said impacted more than 50 nations.

Tensions are high in the Middle East in the aftermath of Hamas’ deadly attack in Israel in October, with fears that the violence in Gaza could spread beyond its border and into other parts of the region.

Houthi military spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree said the strikes “will not go unanswered and unpunished” and that they will continue targeting ships in the Red Sea they say are heading toward Israel’s ports. Yemen, Iran and Hamas also condemned the U.S.-led strikes.

More political reaction

Leaders of key congressional committees on the subject signaled their approval of Biden’s action.

“This strike was two months overdue, but it is a good first step toward restoring deterrence in the Red Sea,” said. Republican Roger Wicker, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I appreciate that the administration took the advice of our regional commanders and targeted critical nodes within Houthi-controlled Yemeni territory.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, said he supported Biden’s “decision to take precise action against these increasingly dangerous provocations that have threatened the interests of the U.S. and our allies, and welcome our coalition partners taking these actions with us.”

“I look forward to continued consultation with the Administration on this decision, as required by law, and encourage the President to persist in his efforts to keep this conflict from spreading further in the region,” he said.

But there is a sizable amount of bipartisan pushback and criticism of the president’s handling of the situation.

“This is illegal and violates Article I of the Constitution,” said Missouri Democrat Cori Bush. “The people do not want more of our taxpayer dollars going to endless war and the killing of civilians. Stop the bombing and do better by us.”

California Democrat Ro Khanna, a Biden campaign surrogate, also said Biden should’ve come to Congress and that his action was “unconstitutional.”

“I think this has increased the risk of retaliation against our embassies and retaliation against our troops,” Khanna said on CNN. “And that’s why I don’t understand how they did not come to Congress. How did the White House have the time to talk to the Canadians, the British, the Australians but not to members of Congress?”

Several conservatives echoed that message.

“He can’t unilaterally pull us into another war. Why does he want so many wars?” said Arizona Republican Rep. Andy Biggs. Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Biden’s loudest critics, said “Biden can not solely decide to bomb Yemen.”

“This is where we should put party aside and stand for the oath we all took: Congress alone decides if we go to war,” said South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace. “I join my colleagues on both sides insisting we follow the Constitution.”

Former President Donald Trump, the GOP frontrunner to face Biden in a potential rematch, criticized Biden in a Truth Social post.

“So, let me get this straight. We’re dropping bombs all over the Middle East, AGAIN (where I defeated ISIS!), and our Secretary of Defence, who just went missing for five days, is running the war from his laptop in a hospital room,” Trump said, referring to Secretary Lloyd Austin’s recent secretive hospitalization revealed to be for complications resulting from prostate cancer treatment.

“Remember, this is the same gang that ‘surrendered’ in Afghanistan, where no one was held accountable or FIRED,” Trump continued. “It was the most embarrassing ‘moment’ in the history of the United States. Now we have wars in Ukraine, Israel, and Yemen, but no ‘war’ on our Southern Border. Oh, that makes a lot of sense.”

Earlier this week, ahead of the strikes, other Republican presidential hopefuls criticized Biden as being too slow to respond to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea during a primary debate.

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley contended Biden had been ” hiding in a corner” on the issue, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis accused Biden of “leaving [U.S. service members] out to dry.”

ABC News’ Fritz Farrow contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Biden Administration is rolling out another pathway to debt relief for certain student loan borrowers next month.

The program targets people who took out smaller loan balances initially and have been paying their loans down for over a decade, unable to get out from under the debt. It’s a component of the SAVE Plan, a new income-driven repayment plan rolled out by the Biden administration last year.

Specifically, people will qualify if they took out less than $12,000 as their initial student loan balance and have been paying it down for 10 years. They also have to be enrolled in SAVE.

The shortened pathway to debt relief is largely intended to benefit people who went to community college or didn’t end up graduating from college but still incurred debt, officials said, which has historically been the group at highest risk for defaulting on their loans.

“If you’re paying it for 10 years, it’s enough,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in an interview on “Start Here,” ABC News’ daily podcast. “They’ve done their part and it’s time to release that debt so they can move on and continue to grow in their finances,” he said of borrowers.

“This is one strategy among many that is intended to open the doors to higher education, make it more affordable so that more folks can access it,” Cardona said to “Start Here” host Brad Mielke.

More than three in five borrowers with defaulted loans originally borrowed less than $12,000, Department of Education Under Secretary James Kvaal said.

Administration officials wouldn’t provide specifics on how many people will qualify for this new pathway to debt relief – but about 6.9 million people have enrolled in SAVE since it opened up last year, or about one-third of borrowers currently in repayment on their student loans, Kvaal said.

Going forward, the Department of Education estimates that the SAVE Plan will make 85% of future community college borrowers debt-free within 10 years.

But as with the broad headaches of the student loan payment restart this fall, the rollout of the SAVE Plan has not been without its hiccups. People attempting to enroll in SAVE during its early fall months faced long processing times for their applications, with around 450,000 applications pending for longer than 30 days, according to a January report from the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

The long processing times left some borrowers unable to enroll in a more affordable plan in time for the end of the three-year pause on student loan payments, which lifted this past fall — though borrowers have a yearlong grace period before they’ll be significantly penalized for missed payments.

On Thursday, senior administration officials said the majority of pending applications, which CFPB estimated were around 1.25 million total in October, had been processed, and that much of the backlog was alleviated — though officials wouldn’t quantify specifically how many were still pending.

The administration announced the SAVE Plan, including the shortened path to debt relief, last year, but said that particular component wouldn’t be ready until July. On Friday, the Biden administration celebrated the February rollout as an early victory.

“I am proud that my Administration is implementing one of the most impactful provisions of the SAVE plan nearly six months ahead of schedule,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “This action will particularly help community college borrowers, low-income borrowers, and those struggling to repay their loans.”

The department will start automatically discharging debts next month for people who qualify and are already enrolled in SAVE, without any effort needed from borrowers. The administration will also begin a campaign to get more people enrolled in SAVE, particularly people who took out low initial balances.

Debt relief is available to people who took out more than $12,000, too. For every $1,000 more that borrowers take out, one year is added to their repayment plan — so people who took out $14,000 could see their debt wiped clear after paying for 12 years.

The administration continues to market the SAVE Plan as the most affordable option for the majority of borrowers, and particularly people with high balances but low incomes.

The key benefits are that the plan offers a shorter path to debt relief than other income-driven repayment options, which require people to pay a portion of their income toward their loans for 20-25 years before their debt is relieved. The SAVE Plan also subsidizes payments to prevent runaway interest.

Meanwhile, for people who make less than minimum wage, their bills are set at $0. According to the Department of Education, 3.9 million of the nearly 7 million enrolled in SAVE so far – more than half of all enrollees – have payments of $0.

“SAVE is the first real student loan safety net in this country. It’s long overdue,” Cardona said.

And 75% of SAVE enrollees so far are Pell Grant recipients, which are grants given to low-income college students, the department said.

In July, another component of the plan will kick in, slashing the percentage of peoples’ income that they need to put toward their loan payments each month, from 10% down to 5% — a move that will further lower monthly bills.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Americans are divided on how the U.S. Supreme Court should handle former President Donald Trump’s ballot access, but a majority in a new ABC News/Ipsos poll say they would support the court either barring Trump from presidential ballots nationally or letting states take that step individually.

The national poll finds a close division on state-level rulings barring Trump from the ballot in Colorado and Maine, 49-46%, support-oppose. On next steps, 56% are willing to see him disqualified in all or some states, including 30% who say the high court should bar him in all states and 26% who say it should let each state decide.

Thirty-nine percent back a third option, saying the court should keep Trump on the ballot in all states.

The survey, produced by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos Public Affairs, also finds substantial support for the leveling of criminal charges against Trump, 56-39%. That contrasts with views on the impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden initiated last month by House Republicans, a step supported by 44% and opposed by 51%.

See PDF for full results, charts and tables.

A conviction, were it to happen, looks unlikely to shake Trump’s base: Among people with a favorable opinion of him, just 10% say a conviction would lower their opinion of Trump, while 12% say it would raise it.

At the same time, among all adults, 21% say a conviction would lower their opinion of the former president, including 15% of Republicans and 23% of independents (as well as 28% of Democrats). Independents often, albeit not always, are swing voters in presidential elections.

Strength of sentiment in the Trump and Biden cases is notable. Forty-one percent of Americans strongly support criminal charges against Trump, while many fewer, 24%, strongly oppose them. In Biden’s case, intensity is more closely distributed: 26% strongly support the impeachment inquiry, while 32% strongly oppose it.

Strength of sentiment doesn’t differentiate views of the Colorado and Maine rulings on Trump’s ballot access. In this case, 35% are strongly in support, while essentially as many, 34%, are strongly opposed.

SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear ballot access arguments on Feb. 8. The Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s secretary of state have ruled that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol makes him ineligible for the presidency under the 14th Amendment.

The case marks a potential turn for the court after its unpopular June 2022 ruling eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion. Last spring, just 39% of Americans thought the court’s justices, in general, base their rulings on the law; 51% instead said they rule based on their personal political views. Today, more think the justices will rule on the basis of the law in the Trump ballot access case, 53%, while fewer, albeit still 43%, think they’ll rule based on their political views.

Groups

Partisanship weighs heavily in these results. The Biden impeachment inquiry is supported by 81% of Republicans vs. 14% of Democrats; the criminal charges against Trump, by 89% of Democrats vs. 21% of Republicans. The main difference is independents: While 43% support the Biden inquiry, many more, 61%, support the Trump charges.

Ideological preferences differentiate as well, with three-quarters of conservatives supporting the Biden inquiry while 92% of liberals back the Trump charges. Here the main difference in overall outcomes is moderates — 39% support the Biden inquiry, compared with 65% who support the Trump charges.

There’s a difference by race/ethnicity as well. Roughly equal numbers of white Americans, about half in each case, support both the Biden inquiry and the Trump charges. The Biden inquiry is supported by 44% of Hispanic people, dropping to 24% of Black people. The Trump charges, by contrast, are supported by more than six in 10 Black and Hispanic people alike.

These also differentiate views on Supreme Court action. For example, 58% of Democrats say the court should order Trump removed in all states; 77% of Republicans say it should order him to be maintained on all ballots. Here, independents are more apt to say he should remain (36%) than be removed (27%). But an additional 32% of independents favor letting each state decide.

At the same time, the shift in views on the court’s adherence to the law crosses party lines. Compared with general views last May, the view that the justices in this particular case will base their ruling on the law is 10 percentage points higher among Democrats, 15 points higher among independents and 18 points higher among Republicans.

Methodology

This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® Jan. 4-8, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,228 adults. Partisan divisions are 25-25-41%, Democrats-Republicans-independents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 2.5 percentage points, including the design effect. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.

The survey was produced by Langer Research Associates, with sampling and data collection by Ipsos Public Affairs. See details on ABC News survey methodology here.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he’s decided who his vice presidential pick will be if he wins the 2024 Republican nomination — but his campaign quickly downplayed that claim, saying the issue hasn’t been discussed in “any great detail.”

“I know who it’s going to be,” Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum during the network’s town hall on Wednesday, which he attended instead of the latest GOP primary debate.

Pressed on who that running mate is, Trump retorted, “I can’t tell you that really.”

Those comments seemingly caught his top aides off guard.

“All I know is what I heard tonight, and I’m not gonna categorize it any other way than that,” senior campaign adviser Chris LaCivita told reporters following the town hall.

Pressed on what types of conversations have happened around a potential vice presidential candidate pick, LaCivita said the talks have been minimal.

“I’m sure that when the time to discuss a VP … comes, everybody will know,” he added.

Multiple names are being floated for who could potentially be Trump’s running mate, including South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a former primary contender who has said he’s not interested in being vice president.

Those politicians have all spent time on the campaign trail touting Trump’s policies and repeatedly affirming their support for the former president. (Former Vice President Mike Pence, Trump’s previous running mate, broke with him in the wake of Jan. 6.)

Trump on Wednesday also spoke approvingly — if, perhaps, jokingly — about someone who until recently was running against him in the primary.

“I’ve already started to like [Chris] Christie better,” Trump said to laughs about mending relationships with his Republican challengers ahead of the general election.

However, Trump quickly threw cold water on the possibility of tapping the former New Jersey governor to be his vice president.

“I don’t see it. That would be an upset,” he said.

Others have suggested a ticket with Trump and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley would be a strong duo to defeat President Joe Biden; however, Trump allies have firmly opposed that idea in light of Haley’s challenge to Trump in the primary.

Noem recently said during an appearance on Newsmax that it would be a “mistake” for the former president to pick Haley as his running mate.

Donald Trump Jr., the former president’s eldest son, has said he would go to “great lengths” to assure Haley doesn’t join the Trump ticket.

Even Haley herself has publicly remained focused on defeating Trump, playing down the possibility of a No. 2 role without, as opponent Ron DeSantis has often noted, definitively ruling it out.

“First of all, I don’t play for second — I never have,” Haley told a voter last week, “and I’m not going to start now.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(DES MOINES, Iowa) — Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis clashed on Wednesday night at their first one-on-one debate of the 2024 Republican primary.

The two, who both trail former President Donald Trump nationally and in early primary states, according to 538’s polling average, engaged in frequently testy exchanges on their records in government and on an array of policy stances at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, the state that will host closely watched caucuses on Monday.

Trump, meanwhile, counterprogrammed the debate, hosted by CNN, with a town hall on Fox News.

Here are five takeaways from Wednesday night’s debate:

Trump on the back burner, with some exceptions

Trump maintains double-digit leads nationally and in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — three early voting states in the race — making him the candidate to beat. On Wednesday, he often barely got a mention except on a few key issues.

In a continuation of a monthslong trend, Haley and DeSantis, vying to be No. 2 to Trump in the polls, instead focused their fire on each other, seemingly in a bid to establish one or the other as the main alternative to Trump with just days left to persuade voters.

Both Haley and DeSantis said Trump should be at the debate. Haley specifically noted that the national debt rose during Trump’s presidency (during which time Trump implemented major tax cuts and responded to COVID-19) and swiped at Trump’s penchant for “drama” and “vengeance,” while DeSantis blamed some violence during social justice protests in 2020 on Trump since he was in the White House.

The two also touched on Trump’s controversial claim that presidents should have virtually complete legal immunity for actions taken in office — an effort to protect him from the criminal charges he now faces, which he denies. The immunity question is currently tied up in court.

“I’m not exactly sure what the outer limits are. I don’t think it’s necessarily been litigated,” DeSantis said.

Haley, meanwhile, said Trump’s claim was “absolutely ridiculous.”

She also called him out on another point — election denialism and Jan. 6.

Though she also mentioned that she believes there were “discrepancies” in the 2020 race, Haley said, “Trump lost that election. Trump lost it. [Joe] Biden won that election and the idea that he’s gone and carried this out forever, to the point that he’s going to continue to say these things to scare the American people, are wrong.”

Haley then said that she believes Trump “will have to answer” for what happened on Jan. 6.

Sharp differences on foreign policy

Haley and DeSantis staked out some of their most noticeable differences on foreign policy, including on Ukraine’s response to Russia’s invasion.

Haley has been vocal in her support for sending arms and other equipment to Ukraine as DeSantis has been more skeptical about prolonged and expansive financial support for Kyiv — a stance that Haley knocked him on.

“Nobody knows what he believes, because when President [Barack] Obama was in office, he supported foreign aid to Ukraine. Now he’s copying Trump and trying to act like he doesn’t want to support Ukraine,” Haley said.

“She supports this $106 billion that they’re trying to get through Congress,” DeSantis later said about Haley’s position, referring to a pending aid package for the country. “Where’s some of that money gone? They’ve done tens of billions of dollars to pay salaries for Ukrainian government bureaucrats. They’ve paid pensions for Ukrainian retirees with your tax dollars.”

“First of all, I have never said that we should give salaries or benefits or anything else to Ukrainians,” Haley retorted. “I did not support the aid package. I support equipment named munition going to Ukraine. I think it is incredibly important that we’re honest and say we have to focus on national security.”

The two did both voice unequivocal support for Israel as it fights against Hamas in Gaza in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attack, though DeSantis said he wouldn’t criticize Israel if it decided to permanently displace Palestinians from the territory — a controversial possibility floated by some Israeli government ministers that has been widely condemned internationally.

“So, as president, I am not going to tell them to do that. I think there is a lot of issues with that. But if they make the calculation that to avert a second Holocaust, they need to do that,” DeSantis said.

Lots of sharp elbows

Haley and DeSantis frequently went after each other in personal terms on a stage featuring just the two of them.

“Ron’s lying because Ron’s losing,” Haley said during the debate. “You’re so desperate. You’re just so desperate.”

Haley also touted a new website to highlight what she said were DeSantis’ “lies.”

DeSantis, meanwhile, said “one good rule of thumb: if she says she has never said something, that definitely means she said it, and then she’ll say, ‘You’re lying, you’re lying.’ That means not only did she say it, but she is on videotape saying it.”

The debate was characterized by many such similar exchanges, with DeSantis going on the offensive in casting Haley as beholden to “Wall Street” and ready to “cave to the woke mob” — as Haley responded that he was being misleading.

Abortion: DeSantis says Haley is ‘confused,’ Haley says to not ‘demonize’

On the topic of abortion access, DeSantis contended that Haley has been “confused” and said, “I think she’s trying to speak to different groups with different things” — seemingly referring to how Haley has not embraced restrictions as he has.

Haley described herself as “unapologetically pro-life” but warned against “playing politics” with the issue.

“Our goal should be: How do we save as many babies as possible and support as many moms as possible?” she said. “We are not going to demonize this issue anymore. We are not going to play politics with this issue anymore. We’re going to treat it like the respectful issue that it is.”

Notably, after DeSantis accused Haley of invoking a “trope” when she raised the prospect of some women receiving jail time for getting an abortion, she responded that there was such legislation in South Carolina.

Haley says 20-year-olds should plan on retirement age increasing

When asked about how each of them would address Social Security’s long-term funding issues, DeSantis assured voters that he “would never raise the retirement age in the face of declining life expectancy” and that he wasn’t going to “mess with seniors’ benefits.”

Haley took a shot at DeSantis, saying that in the past he voted to raise the life expectancy for three years in a row. She was also asked if voters in their 20s should plan on having to work until they’re 70 rather than 67, the current maximum cutoff.

“They should plan on their retirement age being increased, yes,” she said. “We’re going to change it to reflect more of what life expectancy should be.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.