3 charged in Iran-linked plot to assassinate Donald Trump as revenge for killing Qassem Soleimani: DOJ
ABC/Michael Le Brecht II
(WASHINGTON) — Three people have been charged in an alleged Iran-linked plot to assassinate President-elect Donald Trump, an Iranian-American activist and two Jewish Americans living in New York, according to a criminal complaint unsealed Friday in New York.
Farhad Shakeri, Carlisle Rivera and Jonathan Loadholt are charged with murder-for-hire, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Rivera and Loadholt have been arrested, while Shakeri, who the FBI described as an “asset” of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is believed to be in Tehran.
The IRGC tasked Shakeri with surveilling and killing Trump to avenge the death of Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force, in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad in January 2020, according to the complaint.
“There are few actors in the world that pose as grave a threat to the national security of the United States as does Iran. The Justice Department has charged an asset of the Iranian regime who was tasked by the regime to direct a network of criminal associates to further Iran’s assassination plots against its targets, including President-elect Donald J. Trump,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement announcing the charges.
Shakeri emigrated to the United States but was deported in 2008 after serving prison time for robbery, according to the Justice Department. While in prison, he met Rivera and Loadholt and hired them to target an Iranian American activist living in Brooklyn, according to the complaint.
The IRGC also tasked Shakeri with carrying out other assassinations against U.S. and Israeli citizens located in the United States, including Trump, the complaint alleges.
Shakeri informed law enforcement officials that he was tasked a month before the election with providing a plan to kill Trump, according to prosecutors. During the interview, Shakeri allegedly claimed he did not intend to propose a plan to kill Trump within the timeframe set by the IRGC.
He also stated he was tasked with surveilling two Jewish-American citizens residing in New York City and was offered $500,000 by an IRGC official for the murder of either victim, according to the complaint. He was also tasked with targeting Israeli tourists in Sri Lanka, the complaint said.
“Actors directed by the Government of Iran continue to target our citizens, including President-elect Trump, on U.S. soil and abroad. This has to stop,” U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement. “Today’s charges are another message to those who continue in their efforts — we will remain unrelenting in our pursuit of bad actors, no matter where they reside, and will stop at nothing to bring to justice those who harm our safety and security.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Senators grilled Novo Nordisk CEO Lars Jørgensen Tuesday at a hearing over the costs of Ozempic, Wegovy and similar weight loss drugs, requesting explanations for why the U.S. faces a higher list price than other countries.
Since first entering the market nearly six years ago, the drugs have risen in popularity for diabetic patients and others looking to combat obesity. But doctors and patients have faced challenges in access and affordability.
Sitting in front of a chart showing the lower prices for Wegovy and Ozempic in other countries, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the chair of the Senate Health Committee, pressed Jørgensen on why it’s fair to charge more in the U.S.
“All we are saying, Mr. Jørgensen, is treat the American people the same way that you treat people all over the world. Stop ripping us off,” Sanders said to Jørgensen.
Sanders asked Jørgensen why the U.S. faced higher prices. Novo Nordisk charges $969 per month for Ozempic in the U.S., compared to $155 per month in Canada and $59 in Germany. For Wegovy, the price is $1,349 per month in the U.S., but $265 in Canada and $137 in Germany.
“Bottom line is, you are charging the American people substantially more for the same exact drug than you are charging people in other countries. And my question is, why?” Sanders asked.
The CEO said the company was spending $30 billion to increase its production and access to the drugs. He also highlighted a 40% decrease in cost since Ozempic came on the market and a sliding scale of costs for people across the U.S., including programs for low-income Americans to access the medicine for cheaper.
But ultimately, Jørgensen cast the blame on the complexities of the U.S. health care system.
“Senator, we are very committed to make sure that Americans have access at an affordable price point for our medicines. There’s nothing we would rather see happen. We have just announced $30 billion in investments to increase capacity to serve these patients. There is a market we have to operate in, and we negotiate hard to make sure that Americans have access,” he said.
“With that said, it is clear that patients too often struggle to navigate the complex US health care system. It’s also clear that no single company alone can solve such vast and complicated policy changes,” Jørgensen added.
Novo Nordisk isn’t responsible for deciding what price patients pay their insurance companies, he said, and he argued that pharmacy benefit managers, or companies that help oversee prescription drug benefits and control costs, get in the way of companies passing discounts on directly to patients.
But Jørgensen didn’t provide a direct answer to why the U.S. faces a higher list price than other countries, instead pointing to “a very complex market and very complex health care system that creates a lot of misunderstandings.”
“Everyone blames everyone else,” Sanders said, from pharma companies to PBMs to insurance companies.
Sanders connected the high prices of Wegovy and Ozempic to something he’s made the center point of his career, including his 2016 and 2020 campaigns: corporate greed.
“Are they acting illegally by charging us some such high prices? Are they violating the law? No, they’re not. What they’re doing is perfectly lawful. They are simply taking advantage of the fact that, until very recently, the United States has been the only major country on earth not to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs,” Sanders said.
“In other words, Novo Nordisk and other drug companies, not just Novo Nordisk, can charge us as much as the market can bear, and that is precisely what they are doing,” he added.
Jørgensen and a handful of Republican senators, including ranking member Sen. Bill Cassidy, pointed out that wholesale prices don’t offer a completely apples-to-apples picture because, in the U.S., insurance and rebates typically reduce the price patients pay by a significant amount.
“There is a tension, a tension between the need to incentivize innovation and the ability to afford that innovation. We are here struggling with that balance,” Cassidy, who is a physician, said. “If anyone thinks going after big pharma is the silver bullet that if you do that, boom, health care costs or drug costs go down, they don’t understand what happens with pricing a drug.”
Sanders dismissed that argument, however, saying it’s still unfair for the initial list prices to be higher in the U.S. It trickles down to the U.S. patient, Sanders said, leaving Americans with higher prices even with rebates or insurance. Of course, uninsured Americans — around 8% of the country — also pay the full list price.
“Even factoring in all of the rebates that [pharmacy benefit managers] receive, the net price for Ozempic is still nearly $600 — over nine times as much as it costs in Germany. And the estimated net price of Wegovy is over $800 — nearly four and a half times as much as it costs in Denmark,” Sanders said.
When it comes to insurance coverage, drug prices become a “pass through to the insurance companies” resulting in higher plan prices, Sanders argued.
“What must also be understood is that not everybody can take advantage of the net price of these drugs. If you are uninsured, you pay the full list price. If you have a large deductible, you pay the full list price. If you have co-insurance, the percentage of the price you pay at the pharmacy counter is based on the list price,” Sanders said.
Novo Nordisk continued to place the blame on health insurance middlemen for the high drug prices in a statement released after the hearing.
“Our hope is that the conversation with the HELP Committee will result in real and tangible solutions that benefit patients and allow millions of people living with these serious and chronic diseases to be the direct beneficiaries of real change,” the company said. “While no single company can fix the American healthcare system alone, we look forward to continuing to work with policymakers and other stakeholders toward meaningful solutions for the people who rely on our medicines.”
ABC News’ Eric Strauss contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — The FBI and Postal Service are investigating suspicious mail containing a white powder substance that was sent to election offices in at least 16 states this week, according to an ABC News canvass of the country.
None of the mail has been deemed hazardous so far — and in one case, the substance was determined to be flour — but the scare prompted evacuations in some locations.
Election offices in New York, Tennessee, Wyoming, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Colorado received the suspicious packages. Similar suspicious mail was addressed to offices in additional states — Arizona, Georgia, Connecticut and Maryland among them — but investigators intercepted them before they reached their destination.
The FBI and U.S. Postal Inspection Service said in a statement Tuesday that they were investigating letters containing white powdery substances. A law enforcement source said at this point none of the packages were believed to be hazardous.
“We are also working with our partners to determine how many letters were sent, the individual or individuals responsible for the letters, and the motive behind the letters,” the statement read.
At least some of the packages were signed by the “United States Traitor Elimination Army,” according to a copy of a letter sent to members of the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center obtained by ABC News.
Election offices office in Kansas and Wyoming were evacuated on Monday, officials said, and the ventilation system in the Missouri secretary of state’s office in Jefferson City was briefly shut off as a precaution. The North Carolina Board of Elections did not receive any packages with white powder, but an official there told ABC News they are putting in place new safety precautions in light of the incidents in other states.
This latest incident marks the second time in the past year that suspicious mailings containing a white powdery substance were sent to election offices. Last November, similar envelopes were sent to elections offices in five states — four of which tested positive for fentanyl, the FBI said at the time.
In the intervening months, several offices have taken steps to train staff on how to handle poisonous material sent in the mail. In Milwaukee, for example, election workers recently received training on how to administer Narcan.
The National Association of Secretaries of State released a statement urging an end to the “threatening and intimidating actions towards election officials” during recent election cycles.
“This must stop, period,” the statement read. “Our democracy has no place for political violence, threats or intimidation of any kind.”
Americans broadly pick Kamala Harris as the winner of last week’s widely watched presidential debate – yet neither she nor Donald Trump moved the needle in terms of trust on the issues, ratings of the candidates’ personal attributes or vote preferences in the 2024 election.
Even Taylor Swift shows little impact: Just 6% in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll say the pop star singer-songwriter’s endorsement of Harris makes them more likely to vote for her; 13%, instead, say it makes them less likely to support her, with 81% saying it makes no difference. Those responding negatively are overwhelmingly Trump supporters, according to the poll.
Americans by 58-36% say Harris won the debate – a reversal from the Biden-Trump match in June, which Trump was seen as winning by 66-28%. Biden’s performance intensified questions about his cognitive health, precipitating his departure from the race.
The poll of 3,276 adults, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos, finds that Harris did firm up some of her personal appeal: Thirty-seven percent say the debate made them feel more favorably toward her, vs. 23% less favorably. There was no such benefit for Trump: People by nearly 2-1 say the debate made them see him less favorably.
The benefit for Harris occurred almost exclusively in her base, potentially helping her turnout efforts. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents say the debate made them see her more favorably. Only half as many Republicans and GOP-leaning Independents, 34%, say the debate made them see Trump more favorably. One factor may be that Harris, a walk-on candidate, has had less public exposure until now.
The poll also finds a slight dip in the share of Trump supporters who back him strongly – 56%, vs. 60% at the end of August. Sixty-two percent of Harris’ supporters now are strongly behind her, the first meaningful difference in strong support between the two.
That said, Trump shows an advantage in another gauge: while 42% call him too conservative, 47% call Harris too liberal, one of his debate themes.
Preferences
Vote preferences haven’t moved meaningfully. This poll finds the race at 51-46%, Harris-Trump, among all adults; 51-47% among registered voters; and 52-46% among likely voters. Each is within a percentage point of its pre-debate level in ABC/Ipsos polling.
Results are essentially identical when including third-party or Independent candidates Chase Oliver, Jill Stein and Cornel West; they get at most 1% support apiece. State-to-state ballot access for these candidates is a work in progress; ABC News estimates that as of now Oliver likely is on the ballot in about 36 states, Stein in about 27 and West in about 15.
It’s important to note that this poll measures preferences nationally, an effort to better understand how all Americans are coming to their choices in the presidential election. It doesn’t assess the contest at the state level, which determines the winner of the Electoral College.
The absence of movement in vote preferences, despite a 22-point tilt to Harris as having won the debate, marks the sharply polarized nature of the electorate. Almost everyone has a preference between Harris or Trump, and among those who do, few say they’d even consider the other. This is especially true among likely voters, with just 3% potentially persuadable to switch.
Another result also shows the entrenched divisions in attitudes. Seventy-three percent of Trump’s supporters say they’ve backed him all year. Of the rest, 17% were undecided at some point but settled on Trump; just 9% moved to Trump from another candidate – mostly, other Republicans or the former Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Barely 2% of Trump’s supporters came to him after previously preferring Harris or Biden.
It’s similar on Harris’ side of the ledger. Two-thirds of her supporters say they’ve been with her since she got into the race. A quarter were undecided at some point. Just 2% of Harris supporters have moved to her from Trump.
Movable voters can matter – as everyone matters – in a tight race. But these results suggest that the biggest pickings for Trump and Harris alike are in motivating turnout among their existing support groups.
Groups
Harris leads Trump by nine points among women while running virtually even with him among men, and by a slight nine points among 18- to 29-year-olds, entirely due to her support from women that age. She improves among young adults who are more likely to vote.
While younger women are important to Harris, the Swift endorsement doesn’t show a positive impact even in this group. Eight percent of women younger than 30 say the endorsement makes them more likely to support Harris, while 13% say it makes them less likely to do so. Most, 78%, say it makes no difference.
Her position among suburban women, an often-watched group, is similar to her support among women overall. More tellingly, she’s +12 points among independents, often a swing voter group in presidential elections.
Trump, for his part, leads by a vast 79-18% among white evangelical Protestants, with this core GOP group seemingly unfazed by his layered position on abortion. He’s roughly on par with past performance, having won white evangelical Protestants by 74-25% in 2020 and 81-16% in 2016.
In other groups, Trump leads by 12 points among white people, growing to 28 points among those who don’t have a four-year college degree, a mainstay of his support. Despite suggestions that he’s denigrated the military, he leads by 29 points among veterans, 63-34%.
Voters
Many of these results – but not all – hold steady when moving from the general public (relevant because there’s still time to register) to registered voters and then to likely voters. But there are a few notable exceptions.
Harris advances from +9 points among all adults aged 18-29 to +19 points among those identified as likely voters. This is fueled by young women, a cornerstone group in her campaign: Harris goes from +23 points among all women under 30 to +38 points among those likely to vote.
There’s a stark contrast with men aged 18-29 who are likely to vote: Just 51% in this group back Harris, with virtually as many, 48%, for Trump.
Trump, for his part, remains closer than usual to Harris among Hispanic people, now trailing her by 17 points among those who are likely voters. That’s better than usual for Trump compared with past elections: Biden won Hispanic people by 33 points in 2020; Hillary Clinton won them by 40 points in 2016, per ABC News exit polls.
Issues and attributes
While overall vote preferences are stable, so are views on issues and attributes. The economy and inflation continue to dominate as the top issues in the election, and Trump leads by 7 points in trust to handle each of them.
In the next most important issues, Harris responds with a 7-point lead on “protecting American democracy” and a 9-point lead on handling health care. The two remain evenly matched on crime and safety.
It’s clear, too, why Trump keeps doubling down on immigration as an issue: He leads Harris by 10 points in trust to handle it. She leads him by 14 points on abortion and by 16 points on handling race relations, although both rate lower in importance.
There are differences among groups in issue importance. In notable gender gaps, women are 14 points more apt than men to cite abortion as a top issue in their vote, 68% vs. 54% – a difference that holds regardless of age. Women also are 11 points more likely than men to cite health care as a top issue, 82 vs. 71%. Still, the economy and inflation top the issues list among women and men alike.
Harris’ best results vs. Trump continue to be on personal attributes, explaining her effort to lean in on this domain. She leads him by 32 points in having the physical health it takes to serve effectively, 17 points in honesty and trustworthiness, 10 points in mental sharpness, 10 points in understanding the problems of people like you and 7 points in better representing your personal values. All, again, are essentially the same as they were before the debate.
Overall favorability also is essentially unchanged: Forty-seven percent have a favorable impression of Harris, vs. 35% for Trump. Still, they’re close in being seen as qualified for office – Harris by 53%, Trump by 49%. The difference widens, however, among independents; 56% see Harris as qualified vs. 48% who say the same of Trump.
Debate
Lastly, on the debate, it’s notable that 95% of Democrats say Harris won, while fewer Republicans, 75%, say Trump won. (Among independents, 61% pick Harris.) Similarly, among Trump’s own supporters, 78% say he won the debate, while among people backing Harris, 97% give her the win. (These results include people who initially called the debate a tie, then leaned toward Harris or Trump as the winner.)
While 58% overall say Harris won, this rises to 64% of those who watched all or some of the debate. That reflects the fact that Harris supporters are 8 points more likely than Trump supporters to have watched. Harris supporters are even more apt to have read, watched or listened to follow-up news coverage or commentary about the debate – 75% have done so, vs. 59% of those who support Trump.
Methodology
This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® Sept. 11-13, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 3,276 adults. Partisan divisions are 29-29-30%, Democrats-Republicans-independents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points, including the design effect, for the full sample. Sample sizes are 2,772 for registered voters and 2,196 for likely voters, with a 2-point error margin for each. 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 ABC News survey methodology here.
