Trump falsely claims Biden used FEMA funds for migrants — something Trump did himself
Win McNamee/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump has been spreading false claims about the Biden-Harris administration’s response to Hurricane Helene, including the baseless claim that the administration is using Federal Emergency Management Agency money to house illegal migrants. Some of Trump’s allies, including Elon Musk, have been amplifying those claims.
Those claims are not true. But ironically, Trump attempted something similar to what he falsely claims the Biden/Harris administration is doing when he was president.
Back in 2019, Trump used money from FEMA’s disaster fund for migrant programs at the southern border. In August 2019, the Trump administration told Congress it intended to shift $271 million in funding from DHS — including $155 million from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund — to pay for detaining and transporting undocumented immigrants and temporary hearing locations for asylum-seekers.
According to a FEMA monthly report, $38 million was given to Immigration and Customs Enforcement in August of that year.
At the time, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it “backwards and cruel” to divert FEMA money at the start of hurricane season.
“Congress appropriated these funds to meet the American people’s priorities and I strongly oppose this effort to undermine our constitutional authority,” Schumer said at the time.
The White House has been hitting back at the misinformation, stressing that funding for migrant services is run through a separate spigot at Customs and Border Patrol and is not related to FEMA’s disaster recovery efforts. FEMA has also created a fact-checking page on its website.
As for the Harris campaign, they’re letting the Biden administration take the lead on combating misinformation, while amplifying the official response.
But the vice president called Trump out Monday afternoon for pushing falsehoods.
“There’s a lot of mis- and disinformation being pushed out there by the former president about what is available, in particular, to the survivors of Helene,” Harris said. “And, first of all, it’s extraordinarily irresponsible. It’s about him. It’s not about you.”
(NEW YORK) With just weeks to go until the presidential election, a Georgia judge has ruled that certification of election results by county officials in the state is “mandatory” — a new ruling that is likely to be heralded by election experts amid rising fears that rogue election officials could seek to delay or decline to certify results after Election Day due to allegations of fraud or error.
“Election superintendents in Georgia have a mandatory fixed obligation to certify election results,” the order states.
Judge Robert McBurney, as part of an ongoing election case, found that the law is clear: “the superintendent must certify and must do so by a certain time.”
“There are no exceptions,” he wrote in the Monday night ruling.
The ruling comes after Georgia’s controversial State Election Board recently passed new rules that some voting rights activists are concerned would cause chaos in the certification process. One of those new rules allows election officials to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” prior to certification.
Specifically, McBurney’s ruling Monday noted that certification by the county superintendents must occur, even in the case where there are concerns about fraud or error.
“While the superintendent must investigate concerns about miscounts and must report those concerns to a prosecutor if they persist after she investigates, the existence of those concerns, those doubts, and those worries is not cause to delay or decline certification,” McBurney wrote. “That is simply not an option for this particular ministerial function in the superintendent’s broader portfolio of functions.”
Broadly, McBurney noted that the election officials must still certify the results, but report concerns to authorities:
“And if in the course of her canvassing, counting, and investigating, a superintendent should discover what appears to her to be fraud or systemic error, she still must count all votes — despite the perceived fraud — and report her concerns about fraud or error to the appropriate district attorney,” the judge wrote.
(WASHINGTON) — As Election Day arrives, polling still shows razor-thin margins between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump in battleground states.
If the actual vote margin remains that thin in some states, it is possible that automatic recounts could be triggered or that a campaign could request a recount, depending on that state’s rules.
A recent analysis of statewide recounts in general elections from 2000-2023 by the advocacy group FairVote found that statewide recounts in general elections are very rare and usually have not changed much of the vote count. Recounts have almost never changed the state’s winner of a presidential election, although in 1960, a recount in Hawaii changed the winner of the state’s Electoral College votes from Richard Nixon to John F. Kennedy.
More recent presidential recounts have not impacted the winner in the states they were held in, including the attempted 2000 recount in Florida meant to deal with a razor-thin margin between George W. Bush and Al Gore, which the Supreme Court halted. (If Florida’s results had flipped, Al Gore would have won that election.)
In 2020, Donald Trump’s campaign requested recounts in Georgia (after the secretary of state had already undertaken a recount) and some Wisconsin counties. In 2016, the campaign of Green Party candidate Jill Stein requested a recount that was fully undertaken in Wisconsin, and requested one in Michigan (which was halted) and Pennsylvania (which was denied).
Here’s what to know about the rules that govern if and how presidential race recounts are conducted in each of the seven battleground states.
The “canvass of the vote” discussed below refers to the county and/or state procedures that compile, confirm, and validate every vote cast. Recount rules may vary for other races, such as congressional or mayoral races. An “automatic recount” means a recount that is mandated by state law because of the results; the term does not reflect how votes are recounted.
Arizona
A recount is automatically triggered in Arizona if the margin between the two candidates who received the most votes is equal or less than half a percent of the total votes cast, according to Arizona law. The recount must be completed five days after the canvass of the vote is completed, which is Nov. 30.
It is not possible for a candidate, party or voters to request a recount in Arizona. (A Republican-aligned review of election results in Arizona’s Maricopa County in 2021 was not a state-run recount and found no evidence that changed the results in the county.)
Georgia
According to Georgia law, a candidate can ask for a recount within two days of results being certified if the margin between the candidates is less than half a percentage point of the vote. Election officials can also request recounts if they think there is an issue with the results, while the secretary of state can ask for a recount if a candidate petitions them about a suspected issue. There is no explicit deadline for a recount to be completed.
There are no automatic recounts in Georgia.
Michigan
According to Michigan law, an automatic recount is triggered in statewide races if the margin between the top two candidates is 2,000 votes or less.
A candidate can petition for a recount if a few requirements are met, including “a good-faith belief that but for fraud or mistake, the candidate would have had a reasonable chance of winning the election,” according to Michigan law. The petition needs to be filed within 48 hours of the canvass of votes being completed.
Recounts must be completed within 30 days of the end of the period that candidates are allowed to file petitions challenging results, or within 30 days of when recounts are allowed to begin.
(New laws changing how recounts can be done in Michigan were signed into law this year, but will not be in effect for the 2024 election.)
Nevada
A candidate for presidential elector — specifically an Electoral College elector, not the candidate — can request a recount in Nevada up to the 13th day following the election, according to Nevada statutes. The requester needs to deposit the estimated cost of the recount with the secretary of state, but gets the deposit refunded if the recount results in a change in the winner.
The recount needs to be started within a day after being requested and finished within 5 days.
There is a more general statute in Nevada law that allows statewide candidates to request recounts, but this does not apply to presidential races, according to Nevada-based attorney and election law expert Bradley Schrager. Rather, the specific and more recent statute overrides the more general one, so the recount request would have to come from the presidential elector.
“In practice, that’s not really significant, however, because any elector candidate would follow the direction of his or her presidential candidate,” Schrager said.
There are no automatic recounts in Nevada.
North Carolina
A presidential candidate can request a recount in North Carolina if the margin between the candidates is less than half a percentage point or 10,000 votes, whichever is less, according to state law. (The North Carolina State Board of Elections told ABC News that the threshold this year will likely be 10,000 votes.)
The candidate needs to ask for a recount by noon on the second day after the county canvassing of the vote. (In 2024, that day is Tuesday, Nov. 19.)
There are cases where a requested recount would trigger an automatic recount as well, but the election results themselves do not trigger automatic recounts in North Carolina.
Pennsylvania
An automatic recount is triggered in Pennsylvania if the margin between the candidates is within half a percentage of the vote.
The recount must begin “no later than” the third Wednesday after Election Day and be done by noon on the next Tuesday, according to guidance published by the Pennsylvania Department of State.
Candidates themselves cannot request recounts in Pennsylvania.
Wisconsin
In a presidential race, any presidential candidate can request a recount if the margin between the candidates that got the most votes is one percent or less of the total votes cast, according to Wisconsin state statutes. The candidate must request it within the first day after the canvass of the vote is completed.
The state itself pays if the margin is 0.25% of the vote or less; if it is larger, then the candidate who requested the recount must pay. (They receive a refund if the election result changes due to the recount.)
The recount must be completed within 13 days of being ordered.
There are no automatic recounts in Wisconsin.
ABC News’ Quinn Scanlan and Mitch Alva contributed to this report.
Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speak during a presidential debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Sept. 10, 2024. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Climate change remains on the backburner of the 2024 election following little mention of environmental policy during the first — and possibly only — debate between the two presidential candidates.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump faced off for the first time on Tuesday night from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, where neither candidate dedicated ample time to addressing what they would do to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and bolster the clean energy industry.
“I think what we learned last night is that climate really is not on the ballot this fall,” Leah Aronowsky, a science historian at the Columbia Climate School, whose research has focused on the history of climate science and climate denialism, told ABC News.
Climate change has not taken center stage this election cycle due to other topics — such as the economy, immigration and abortion — but that doesn’t mean that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is any less important, John Abraham, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, told ABC News.
The first mention of greenhouse gas emissions came amid Trump’s claims that he “built one of the strongest economies in the history of the world.” The former president accused the Biden administration of enacting policies that would destroy the domestic oil industry and cause inflation to worsen.
But, the Biden administration produced 12.9 million barrels per day in 2023, breaking the record set in 2019 at 12.3 million barrels, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows.
During the debate, Harris touted the Biden administration bringing domestic gas production to “historic levels.” Lena Moffitt, executive director of the environmental organization Evergreen Action, an environmental nonprofit, told ABC News the reference was likely an effort to entice a broad array of voters by promising to extend commitment to fossil fuel extraction while also building out a renewable energy industry and focusing more on electric vehicles.
Harris was also questioned during the debate on whether she has changed her “values” on whether to ban fracking.
Reliance on domestic stores of oil necessitates continued fracking, Harris said, making clear that she will not ban the technique used to extract oil and gas from underground rock formations, despite Trump’s insistence that she had been against it for “12 years.”
ABC News could not identify why Trump claimed Harris had been claiming for 12 years that she would ban fracking.
In 2016, while attorney general of California, Harris sued the U.S. Interior Department over its environmental assessment on the California coastline, which would have allowed fracking on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf. Since 2020, Harris has made it “very clear” that she will not ban fracking, she said during the debate.
“I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases on fracking,” she said. “My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.”
The only question explicitly about climate change came at the very end, just before the candidates’ closing arguments.
When asked what she would do to fight climate change, Harris first reminded voters that Trump has described the climate crisis as a “hoax” before talking about where Americans are being hit hardest by extreme weather events: their homes.
Homeowners in states that experience extreme weather events are increasingly being denied home insurance, or premiums are “being jacked up,” Harris said.
“You ask anybody who has been the victim of what that means — in terms of losing their home, having nowhere to go,” Harris said.
Appealing to homeowners was a smart move on Harris’ part, Aronowsky said, adding that homeowners will take the brunt of the economic hardships of the extreme weather that is predicted to increase as global temperatures continue to rise.
“We’re going to see more and more insurance companies dropping the homeowners from policies, Americans getting hit with exorbitant insurance premiums,” she said. “So, it’s really a looming political crisis.”
Harris said that young Americans “care deeply” about climate change. It’s because they’ve seen first-hand how climate change can affect their lives, Moffitt said.
“It is an issue that a lot of Americans really care about, especially young voters,” Moffitt told ABC News.
Trump did not answer the question on climate change, instead focusing on jobs that he said are no longer in existence due to Chinese-owned auto plants being built in Mexico.
“They lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs this last month,” Trump said. “It’s going — they’re all leaving.”
Investing in the clean energy industry will actually create more jobs, Abraham said. The U.S. now has an opportunity to participate in the green energy economy to power the country, which will create high-tech, high-paid jobs, he said.
“I think it’s a real missed opportunity for Republicans,” Abraham said. “If you’re a fiscal conservative, you want to be part of this new energy economy and make money off it.”
Clean energy employment increased by 142,000 jobs in 2023, according to a U.S. Department of Energy report released last month.
With the passing of the landmark Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration has made more progress than any previous administration on environmental policy, the experts said.
But environmental advocates and policymakers will have to find a way going forward to help the public understand how climate change will affect Americans in their everyday lives, Aronowsky said.
“It’s becoming clear that talking about climate as a … standalone issue is a political dead end,” she said.
