Biden preemptively pardons Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley and Jan. 6 committee members
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Monday issued preemptive pardons to potential targets of the incoming Trump administration, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley and lawmakers who served on the House Jan. 6 Committee.
“Our nation relies on dedicated, selfless public servants every day. They are the lifeblood of our democracy,” Biden said in a statement just hours before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office.
“Yet alarmingly, public servants have been subjected to ongoing threats and intimidation for faithfully discharging their duties,” Biden added.
Trump in his 2024 campaign repeatedly vowed “retribution” on his political enemies, specifically singling out lawmakers like Liz Cheney who investigated the attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump said Cheney and other committee members should be put in jail.
Milley, who retired as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2023, has long been a target of Republican attacks over the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has been a lightning rod for criticism over the federal government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Milley put out a statement shortly after Biden’s announcement.
“My family and I are deeply grateful for the President’s action today,” he said. “After forty-three years of faithful service in uniform to our Nation, protecting and defending the Constitution, I do not wish to spend whatever remaining time the Lord grants me fighting those who unjustly might seek retribution for perceived slights. I do not want to put my family, my friends, and those with whom I served through the resulting distraction, expense, and anxiety.”
“It has been an honor and a privilege to serve our great country in uniform for over four decades, and I will continue to keep faith and loyalty to our nation and Constitution until my dying breath,” Milley added.
Fauci told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl he accepted the pardon and is grateful for it.
“I really truly appreciate the action President Biden has taken today on my behalf,” Fauci said. “Let me be perfectly clear, Jon, I have committed no crime, you know that, and there are no possible grounds for any allegation or threat of criminal investigation or prosecution of me.”
But Fauci said the threats and possibility of prosecution “creates immeasurable and intolerable distress on me and my family.”
ABC News reported in early December that Biden was considering such an action, days after he issued a full pardon for his son, Hunter Biden. In an exit interview with USA Today earlier this month, Biden signaled he was still wrestling with the decision.
Some Democrats argued against preemptive pardons, including Sen. Adam Schiff, who served on the House Jan. 6 committee.
“The precedent of giving blanket pardons, preemptive blanket pardons on the way out of an administration, I think is a precedent we don’t want to set,” Schiff said on ABC’s “This Week” in December.
But Biden, in his statement on Monday, expressed concern about attempts to rewrite the violence that unfolded at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
“I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics,” Biden said. “But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing. Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families.”
“That is why I am exercising my authority under the Constitution to pardon General Mark A. Milley, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the Members of Congress and staff who served on the Select Committee, and the U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before the Select Committee,” he said. “The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense. Our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country.”
Harry Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer, said he was “eternally grateful” to Biden for the action but also for his leadership.
“I wish this pardon weren’t necessary, but unfortunately, the political climate we are in now has made the need for one somewhat of a reality. I, like all of the other public servants, was just doing my job and upholding my oath, and I will always honor that,” Dunn said.
ABC News’ Matt Seyler and Pierre Thomas contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump and his allies have vowed to radically shift American policy from Day 1.
From mass deportations to eliminating the Department of Education, Trump’s policies could impact millions of people and communities across the country. However, experts say there is a big obstacle that will make it harder — if not impossible — for the incoming administration to implement these plans: States and municipalities.
Alison LaCroix, professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, told ABC News that the power to regulate and implement key laws lies strictly within the states and many local leaders have already been working to prepare for a possible future Trump administration.
“The states have a lot of levers in the constitutional system, legal system and other systems,” she said. “This usually comes as a lot of shock to people who don’t know how much power they wield but we’re going to soon find out how valuable they are.”
Other experts who have focused on some of the biggest sectors targeted by Trump, such as public health and immigration, agreed but said they are likely gearing up for a legal and policy fight that could last a long time.
Trump has said he aims to remove at least 1 million immigrants living in the country illegally from the U.S. as soon as possible.
Elora Mukherjee, the director of Columbia Law School’s immigration clinic, told ABC News that states can’t outright act as immigration enforcement for the federal government without an agreement.
“It is the principle that the federal government cannot order local law enforcement to enact federal priorities,” she said.
Democratic governors like Gavin Newsom of California and JB Pritzker of Illinois have vowed not to assist Trump with any mass deportation plan, and Mukherjee said their claims are not empty words.
She said states already showed their power during the first Trump administration by blocking Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from entering courthouses for potential raids and denying the agency detainers that would have kept jailed immigrants in custody longer without an arraignment.
She added that any attempts by the Republican-controlled Congress to change immigration and deportation laws to take away rights from the states will take some time and likely be met with resistance even among Republican members who think it is too extreme.
“The Trump administration will issue many executive orders, but a large number that will be illegal and unconstitutional,” Mukherjee added.
At the same time, Mukherjee said that conservative states and municipalities may bolster anti-immigrant policies and make it harder for migrants and asylum seekers to gain a path to citizenship.
Sixty counties and police districts, many of them in Florida, have entered into 287(g) agreements with ICE, in which local law enforcement can conduct immigration policies on behalf of the federal government such as executing warrants and detaining undocumented immigrants, according to Mukherjee.
Florida also passed SB 1718 last year which cracks down on undocumented immigration with several provisions, including making it illegal to transport undocumented immigrants and requiring hospitals to ask patients for their immigration status.
Mukherjee stressed that states cannot try to enforce their own laws in other jurisdictions due to the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg vs. Pennsylvania. That case, which overturned the conviction of a man convicted under a state law that prevented slave-catching, held that while federal law supersedes state law, states are not required to use their resources to uphold federal laws.
“It’s extremely difficult and illegal for one state to impose their laws onto another,” Mukherjee said.
Even when it comes to executive orders, Mukherjee said the laws are mostly on the side of states and municipalities.
Trump’s “border czar” choice Tom Homan has already threatened to go after states and cities that refuse to comply with the president-elect’s deportation plans, including arresting mayors.
Mukherjee said there is no legal mechanism or modern legal precedent that allows the federal government to incarcerate local leaders for not adhering to an administration’s policy.
“Sanctuary city laws are entirely allowed within the U.S. Constitution,” she said. “The 10th Amendment is extremely clear. The powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. This is a bedrock principle of U.S. constitutional law.”
Public education State education officials are in the same boat when it comes to federal oversight, experts said.
Although Trump and other allies have made it clear that they want to eliminate or weaken the federal Department of Education, funding for schools and education programs lies mostly in the hands of state legislatures and local school boards, according to Alice O’Brien, the general counsel for the National Education Association.
“Those campaign promises in reality are much harder to achieve,” O’Brien told ABC News. “They would require federal legislation to accomplish.”
Federal oversight has little control over local school curriculum policies, she added.
O’Brien noted that much of the federal oversight on public schools lies outside of the jurisdiction of the Department of Education. For example, state school districts must adhere to laws set forth at the federal level such as non-discrimination against race and religion and disabilities.
“States and school systems can not run in any way that conflicts with the federal Constitution,” O’Brien said.
When it comes to funding, although the federal DOE does provide funding as a floor to many school districts, it is a small fraction compared to the funding that comes from city and state coffers, O’Brien explained.
Public health “It really comes down to a state-by-state basis in terms of how much dollars are allocated to the schools,” she said. “Ultimately it really comes down to how much money the state budgets have.”
Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association and former Maryland health secretary, told ABC News that state public health offices operate under the same localized jurisdiction and thus would have more autonomy on health policies.
Trump’s pick for the head of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been a staunch promoter of anti-vaccination policies and has pushed for the end of fluoride in water supplies.
Benjamin said he is worried about the effects of having someone with no professional health experience and public dismissiveness of proven health policies, however, he remarked that states and municipalities still hold immense power in implementing policies.
Georges noted that fluoride levels in the water supply are dictated at a local level, and many counties have chosen not to implement them. Federal health agencies can make recommendations but cannot block a municipality from implementing fluoridation, he said.
“There is no fiscal penalty for not following it,” Benjamin said of federal recommendations.
The same rules govern local vaccination requirements, he added.
“[The federal government does] control vaccine mandates at the federal level, with the federal workforce, but they don’t control the bulk of childhood mandates,” Benjamin said.
He noted that the country saw the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of state-run public health systems during the two years that COVID-19 hit the nation and the rollout of the vaccines. Republican and Democratic states all instituted shelter-in-place and social distancing rules during the peak of cases, Benjamin said.
“I do think we have a wait-and-see attitude,” he said.
In the meantime, several states have taken measures to bolster their state health policies, particularly when it comes to reproductive rights, through legislative action and ballot measures.
Power in state prosecutors One of the biggest ways that states will be able to “Trump-proof” their laws and policies is through state prosecutors and the courts, LaCroix said.
“We will see a lot of arguments in local government and what they can do,” she said.
Mukherjee said several state attorneys general were able to take Trump to court during his first administration and push back against immigration proposals such as his ban on residents from Muslim countries and deportation plans.
Mukherjee said despite the increase in Trump-backed judges in the federal courts, there is still the rule of law when it comes to immigration. For example, earlier this year, a federal judge struck down the provision in Florida’s SB 1718 that threatens felony charges for people who transport an undocumented immigrant.
U.S. District Judge Roy Altman, a Trump-appointed judge, issued an injunction against that provision stating that immigration-related enforcement was not in the state’s power.
“It will be harder this time around to win sweeping victories for immigrants and non-citizens … but federal judges across party lines reined in the worst abuses of the Trump administration the first time around,” she said.
LaCroix echoed that statement and said that partisanship can only go so far, especially when it comes to laws enshrined in the state and federal constitutions.
“Judges still have to give reasons for what they do and ‘because our party is in charge’ doesn’t hold weight,” she said.
(WASHINGTON) — Several House Republicans stormed out of Tuesday morning’s conference meeting furious over Speaker Mike Johnson’s handling of the government funding bill – which still isn’t ready and puts the federal government on the brink of a shutdown at the end of the week.
Republicans had initially promised to release bill text over the weekend with the aim of holding a vote early in the week, but outspoken criticism from within their ranks has continually delayed negotiators from finalizing the legislation.
Johnson denied that the evolving package amounts to a so-called “Christmas tree omnibus,” but confirmed that the measure is not a clean continuing resolution and will include a disaster relief package — reported to be more than $100 billion — as well as $10 billion for the agricultural community.
Missouri Republican Rep. Eric Burlison called the speaker’s funding plan presented at the conference meeting a “total dumpster fire.”
“I think it’s garbage,” Burlison said, adding that he has conveyed his frustrations to Johnson, who is seeking to retain the speaker’s gavel in the new year.
“I’m disappointed,” Burlison said when asked about Johnson’s future. “I think that he can do better. He can communicate better. The fact that we haven’t seen the language today and we’re supposed to vote on it this week is unacceptable.”
South Carolina Republican Rep. Ralph Norman said he is frustrated with the funding plan as well.
“I’m not voting for the CR [continuing resolution],” he said.
Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy, a frequent critic of the leadership’s spending bills, said, “This is not the way to do business right.”
“We’re just fundamentally unserious about spending. And as long as you got a blank check, you can’t shrink the government. If you can’t shrink the government, you can’t live free,” Roy said.
The Texas congressman did not respond when asked if he’ll support the speaker in January.
Georgia Republican Rep. Rich McCormick said as he left the meeting, “I’m frustrated with the whole approach to this, because I think, once again, we’re just adding to the deficit without having any clear plan forward,”
After relying on Democrats for bipartisan support to pass the past five continuing resolutions, Johnson brushed off the criticism bubbling up within his ranks, stressing that the bill has not been released.
“I got a couple of friends who will just say that about any end of year funding measure,” Johnson said. “This is not an omnibus, OK? This is a small CR that we’ve had to add things to that were out of our control. These are not manmade disasters. These are things that the federal government has an appropriate role to do.”
Despite the growing tensions, Johnson expressed optimism that his speakership will overcome the challenges to buy the conference time until Republicans have unified control over Washington next year.
“I’m not worried about the speaker’s vote. We’re governing. Everybody knows we have difficult circumstances. We’re doing the very best we can under those circumstances,” Johnson said. “These are the hard choices that lawmakers have to make, but we will get the job done, as we always do. We will. We will keep moving forward, and in January, we have a new lease on all this.”
With government funding set to lapse at the end of the week, Johnson was steadfast that the House must abide by a 72-hour rule, where the clock starts to tee up a vote once bill text is released.
“I believe in the 72-hour roll rule,” Johnson said. “We’re committed to all of that. We’re going to take care of these obligations and get this done, and then we’re going to go to work in unified government in the 119th Congress. It begins in January.”
(WASHINGTON) — While tens of millions of early votes have already been cast, there are still millions of Americans who will be heading to the polls on Election Day. Experts predict the 2024 election will be one of the closest in history, with several key states still in contention that could determine the next president.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have been actively campaigning over the past few months in several swing states. This year, seven swing states are in intense competition: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
To win the White House, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes, different combinations from the collective total of 93 electoral votes from these swing states will ultimately determine the winner.
Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024, with polling hours varying by state law. Here’s an update on three of the seven swing states in the final hours leading up to the election.
In Pennsylvania, young voters ready to make an impact
Pennsylvania, with 19 electoral college votes, is considered the key to the election and many believe the winner of Pennsylvania will become the next president.
In this battleground state, ABC News spoke with young voters who believe their vote could significantly impact this election. These voters have observed Harris and Trump competing often in their state.
Both candidates held many stops and rallies on Monday.
Two first-time voters, 18-year-old Isaac Gourley and Caleb Root, will be at one of Pennsylvania’s thousands of polling places. They attend Redbank Valley High School in Western Pennsylvania.
They have been listening to both presidential candidates and will decide their vote based on their priorities.
“What stuck out to me was just their — kind of like international — policy,” Gourley said. “You know, how we talk to other people.”
According to a Tufts University study, about 50% of registered voters 18-29-year-olds voted in the 2020 election — an all-time high. In Pennsylvania, they turned out at a rate even higher than the national average: 54%.
“I pay attention a lot to the economy,” Root said.
The rules for counting ballots in Pennsylvania indicate that it may take days to determine the winner. Mailed-in votes cannot be counted until polls open at 7 a.m. on Election Day.
Helene won’t stop voters in North Carolina
Despite initial concerns, voter turnout rates in the 25 North Carolina counties hardest hit by Hurricane Helene surpassed statewide early voting averages leading up to Election Day, with more than 760,000 total ballots cast.
North Carolina and its 16 electoral votes are especially crucial in the razor-thin contest between Harris and Trump. According to the latest NYT/Siena College polling, Harris has a narrow lead over Trump in a race that remains too close to call.
In this historic election that hinges on voter turnout, both campaigns are targeting women, the country’s largest voting bloc.
An ABC News/Ipsos poll shows a clear gender gap between voters. Trump is up 5 points with male voters, while Harris is up by 11 points with women.
During early voting, young women on the North Carolina State University campus marched to the polls with a pro-choice message, inviting men to join them.
“I’m really scared that I feel like I don’t know the rights I have as a woman,” Lizzie Pascal, a student there, said.
Harris leads suburban women voters nationally by 15 points overall; however, Trump has a four-point advantage among white women, according to the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll. That demographic is widely believed to have contributed to his victory in 2016.
Sandy Joiner, president of the Western Wake County Republican Club, has worked to canvass with Republican women competing for state and local seats.
“We have knocked on around 12,000 doors in our area,” Joiner said. “And we have, we have knocked all the doors, so we don’t have any doors left. So what we’re doing now is we’re knocking doors in areas that may not have been reached.”
The same goals drive these women, whether they are encouraging voters to turn out in storm zones, suburbs or on college campuses. Women are likely to hold the key to determining who ascends to the White House when all the votes are counted on and after election night.
How Michigan is a must-win for both Trump and Harris
Experts say Michigan is a must-win for both sides, which is why both candidates campaigned extensively across the Great Lakes.
Once part of the Democrats’ so-called “blue wall,” polling shows that Michigan — and its 15 electoral votes — is a tossup.
While early votes show an increase in women and young voters in college towns, one of the groups that was once solidly Democratic is no longer true blue: union members.
ABC News spoke with Douglas King, an autoworker and UAW member for nearly 30 years. He says the economy, like for so many other Americans, is his top issue.
“I was raised to believe that the Democrats are the party of the working people,” King said. “And maybe at one time they were. I don’t feel that way now.”
Many union leadership endorsed Harris.
In this tightly contested race, the more than 500,000 union workers are crucial for Harris; however, some of them appear to be moving away from voting for the Democratic Party. King, who voted for Barack Obama twice, has decided to support Trump for president for the third time.
“People are afraid to say they’re voting for Trump because Trump supporters are put in a box, that they’re these hateful, racist people that are homophobic, and it’s just not true,” King said. “Trump has a lot of support on the plant floor.”
There are cracks in the old coalition that has consistently voted for Democrats for the past 30 years. However, Trump broke through the blue wall in 2016 by narrowly defeating Hillary Clinton by roughly 10,000 votes in Michigan.
