(WASHINGTON) — Retired Lt. Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, denied on Tuesday that he has ever worn a “Make America Great Again” hat or any other type of political merchandise.
In at least one retelling of Caine and Trump’s first meeting in Iraq in 2018, the president has seemed to indicate Caine was wearing a red MAGA hat, something that would not be allowed under military rules.
The question was posed by some senators at Caine’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“Let me start off by asking about some hyperbole that may have been out there in the press,” Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said at the start of Tuesday’s hearing. “Gen. Caine, did you wear a MAGA hat in front of the president?”
“No, sir,” he responded.
He provided the same answer when asked by Wicker, “Did you wear a MAGA hat at any time?”
And when pressed by Wicker, Caine said, “Sir, for 34 years, I’ve upheld my oath of office and my commitment to my commission, and I have never worn any political merchandise.”
When Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the ranking member on the committee, followed up with the same line of questioning, Caine answered, “As I mentioned to the chairman, for 34 years, I’ve upheld my oath of office and in the responsibilities of my commission.
“I think I went back and listened to those tapes, and I think the president was actually talking about somebody else,” Caine said. “And I’ve never worn any political merchandise or said anything to that effect.”
Trump’s story about how he first met Caine has evolved over the years since he first mentioned Caine during remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2019, shortly after his trip to Iraq the previous year.
Trump has repeatedly given Caine credit for ending the war against the Islamic State and in his first recounting of their meeting noted how Caine became memorable to him for saying that ISIS could be destroyed in weeks by quickly striking strongly at its last remaining pieces of territory in Syria, something Trump said his advisers in Washington argued could still take years.
In that first retelling, Trump jokingly focused on how he was struck by the general’s call sign “Razin,” asking if it was a reference to the raisin fruit.
Trump continued to tell a version of that story over the years, but at last year’s CPAC, where he again brought up that first encounter with Caine, the president appeared to state that Caine was wearing a red MAGA hat at the time.
However, it was unclear if Trump was referring to Caine or to a sergeant because in the transcript of those remarks, he first mentioned meeting Caine, whom he referred to as general and asked his name.
Then, according to the transcript, Trump appeared to ask a sergeant his name, who in turn told him, according to Trump, “Yes, sir. I love you, sir. I think you’re great, sir. I’ll kill for you, sir.”
Then he puts on a “Make America Great Again” hat, as did hundreds of other service members in Trump’s retelling.
“And they’re not supposed to do this, but they all put on the ‘Make America Great Again’ hat, right? Not supposed to do it. I said, you’re not supposed to do that. You know that. They said, ‘It’s OK, sir. We don’t care,'” Trump said.
The wearing of political merchandise by military service members is not allowed as it is a tenet of an apolitical military.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — House Republican leaders will take an unprecedented step Tuesday when they are expected to block Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s bipartisan discharge petition to allow proxy voting for new lawmaker parents up to 12 weeks after giving birth — the latest move in a weekslong internal House GOP clash.
Republican leaders inserted specific language into the joint “rule” — a procedural maneuver to advance legislation — which says the discharge petition by Luna, a hard-line Republican, and other similar bills that would address proxy voting are out of order.
Tuesday afternoon’s vote is on the joint rule — which also includes other unrelated legislation. Luna is expected to vote against the rule. If others join her, the House could be paralyzed from moving on legislation.
Luna’s legislation seeks to allow new mothers and fathers in the House to vote on legislation remotely. Luna had a child in 2023 as she was serving in Congress.
Democratic Reps. Brittany Pettersen and Sara Jacobs introduced the effort with Luna and Republican Rep. Michael Lawler in January.
“I am doing this because I believe this governing body needs to change for the better and young American parents need to be heard in the halls of Congress,” Luna said last week.
This extraordinary move from GOP leaders to block the legislation comes after Luna received 218 signatures on her resolution — enough needed to force the House to vote on the measure. Lawmakers use discharge petitions to circumvent leadership, who determine what legislation comes to the floor.
Speaker Mike Johnson and Luna have been at odds over proxy voting for new parents. The speaker has argued the effort is unconstitutional and made his case during the closed GOP conference meeting Tuesday morning, sources told ABC News.
Johnson has argued that proxy voting is the start of a slippery slope that could lead to more and more members voting remotely. Proxy voting was used during the COVID-19 pandemic, which many Republicans were against.
“I believe it’s unconstitutional. I believe it violates more than two centuries of tradition in the institution, and I think that it opens a Pandora’s box where, ultimately, maybe no one is here, and we’re all voting remotely by AI or something. I don’t know. I don’t think that’s what Congress is supposed to be,” Johnson said at a news conference last week.
Despite some Republican support for the bill, Johnson said “as the leader of this institution and the one who’s supposed to protect it, I don’t feel like I can get on board with that.”
“This is a deliberative body. You cannot deliberate with your colleagues if you’re out somewhere else. Now, there are family circumstances that make it difficult for people to attend votes. I understand that. I’ve had them myself,” he said.
Luna said in a post on X Tuesday that she asked that the legislation just cover new moms to vote by proxy “and they still said no.”
“The argument here is no longer making sense,” Luna wrote. “They say it is unconstitutional yet they voted by proxy.”
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar declared that it’s time for Republicans to stop with the “pro-family” lecturing.
“Republicans should stop lecturing people on being pro-family when they’re opposing this uniformly,” he said at the party’s weekly press conference on Tuesday.
Aguilar praised Rep. Pettersen for working across the aisle with Luna as Republican leadership has fumed about the bipartisan effort.
“It’s shameful and terrible. Our members will oppose these efforts, our hope is reasonable Republicans who have worked with us on these issues will oppose effort too,” Aguilar said about the discharge petition block. “It’s clear that Speaker Johnson is doing everything he can to undermine the will of the House. The majority of the members in the House of Representatives would support this legislation.”
The vote comes a day after Luna resigned from the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus over her legislation, according to a letter obtained by ABC News.
“With a heavy heart, I am resigning from the Freedom Caucus. I cannot remain part of a caucus where a select few operate outside its guidelines, misuse its name, broker backroom deals that undermine its core values and where the lines of compromise and transaction are blurred, disparage me to the press, and encourage misrepresentation of me to the American people,” she wrote in the letter.
(MADISON, WI) — Democratic-backed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford will win the hot-button Supreme Court race in Wisconsin, The Associated Press projected Tuesday. The race was seen as a barometer on how Americans are feeling at this point in President Donald Trump’s second term
While the race is technically nonpartisan, it became the center of a political firestorm, as well as the target of millions spent by groups linked to tech billionaire and key Trump adviser Elon Musk, who supported Republican-backed Brad Schimel.
ABC affiliate WISN reported Tuesday evening that election officials in Milwaukee said there are ballot shortages at some polling sites in the city because of “historic turnout,” but that voters should stay in line and that staff are working on getting resources to the impacted polling places.
In a victory speech to supporters, Crawford acknowledged the immense attention and money that the race for control of the court attracted, particularly from Musk.
“I’ve got to tell you, as a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin, and we won,” she said. “So today, Wisconsinites fended off an unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections, and our Supreme Court. And Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale.”
Schimel supporters shouted “No!” when he told them he had called Crawford to concede, but he said, “No, no, no, no, you’ve got to accept the results … I’m not up here making any joke. The numbers aren’t gonna turn around. They’re too bad and we’re not going to pull this off.”
Asked earlier Tuesday what it would mean if Musk’s efforts worked, Crawford said, “Well, I think it’ll be a sad day for democracy… but I’m pretty confident that voters are going to see through those tactics, and that we will have a successful day.”
Crawford and Schimel were vying to replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and her apparent victory will cement the court’s liberal leaning.
“This is playing out like a presidential-style election. You turn on your TV, any local broadcast station here across the state of Wisconsin, you are inundated with political-type ads for what is technically a nonpartisan judicial race, but this is a full-on political race … this is becoming a true litmus test for the first 100 days of the Trump administration,” Matt Smith, political director at Milwaukee’s ABC affiliate WISN-TV, told ABC News Live anchor Diane Macedo last week.
Independent voter Eric Sams voted for Trump in November but said he voted for Crawford on Tuesday.
“I believe that women’s rights are issues. Even Trump says it’s a state issue. If you’re going to make it a state issue, then our state needs to have access for women to be able to have access to reproductive rights,” Sams said.
Dwayne Heulse also voted for Trump, but said Tuesday the president’s endorsement of Schimel didn’t matter.
“I don’t care who Trump supports,” he said. “I will go after the guy who I think is the best, and that’s what I look at first. He can support the man on the moon, but I’m not going to vote for him unless I feel that this is a person who is going to meet the qualities I want, especially as a judge.”
Asked Tuesday about the national attention on the race, Schimel said, “If you told me six months ago that this was what was going to be happening, I I would not have believed it. But here we are, and you know, you just have to keep your head down. I’ve been running for Wisconsin voters, it’s been a — I’ve run a 72-county race.”
Crawford will join the bench as the court potentially grapples with key voter issues such as abortion access and redistricting. For example, there is a Wisconsin Supreme Court case regarding if the Wisconsin Constitution protects the right to an abortion, which the court might consider after the new justice is seated.
The race was also seen as a preview of how voters in the battleground state feel a few months into Trump’s second term — especially as Musk and his work with the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency becomes a key issue given his groups’ investments in the race.
Musk continued to push the idea that the Wisconsin election matters because of how potential redistricting cases could impact the balance of power in the House of Representatives. He claimed to Fox News without offering proof that if the conservative candidate loses, Republicans could lose their majority in the House because Wisconsin’s congressional districts would be redrawn.
“Well, the reason tonight’s elections are so important is that the judge race will decide whether the Wisconsin district, districts get redrawn. They’re kind of trying to gerrymander Wisconsin to remove two Republican seats. And as you know, the — the House is currently Republican by a razor thin margin, which means that losing this judge race has good chance of causing Republicans to lose control of the House,” Musk said.
The justice elected won’t take office and order districts to be redrawn, however. The court could revisit congressional districts if the issue comes before the court in a case.
“That is why it is so significant, and whichever party controls the House, to a significant degree, controls the country which then steers the course of Western civilization,” Musk said at a high-profile town hall on Sunday in Green Bay.
On Sunday, the tech billionaire also controversially gave away two $1 million checks to attendees at a rally in his latest effort to support Schimel.
Schimel is a former state attorney general and a circuit court judge in Waukesha County. He received almost $20 million in support (such as spending for TV ads) as of Monday from groups linked to Musk, per a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Schimel has also received endorsements from Trump, Musk, Donald Trump Jr., and other key conservative figures.
Schimel has welcomed the conservative support, yet said at a rally last week that he would treat any case fairly, including if it was a case brought by Trump.
However, Crawford and her allies have alleged he would not treat cases involving Trump or Musk fairly, and she made Musk a main target of her campaign.
Schimel, asked on Thursday by ABC affiliate WISN to share his closing argument ahead of the final days in the race, said, “My closing argument is that people need to take this race seriously. So much is at stake. We have to restore objectivity to this court right now … We have to put the court back in its proper role where it’s not making the law. It’s not going through a political agenda. It is applying the law the way the legislature writes it, to the facts of the case.”
Crawford is a Dane County circuit court judge and a former private attorney. At points, she represented Democratic-aligned groups such as Planned Parenthood, an organization supporting abortion access.
Major liberal donors such as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Democratic donor George Soros have given money to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and the state party has donated $2 million to Crawford. The national Democratic Party has also invested in the race. She also has the endorsements of former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Kamala Harris.
Crawford told WISN that her closing argument was about an impartial court: “It’s about making sure that we have a Supreme Court that is fair and impartial in interpreting our laws to protect the rights of Wisconsinites. The other choice is an extreme partisan, someone who is selling out to special interests, has a long history of doing that, and has now tied himself to Elon Musk.”
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as of Monday, more than $90 million has been spent in the race — making it the most expensive judicial election in the nation’s history. That amount includes more than $49 million spent by Schimel or groups supporting him, and more than $40 million spent by Crawford or groups supporting her.
The nonprofit says that the previous record for spending in a state supreme court race was in Wisconsin’s 2023 state supreme court election, when $56 million was spent.
Voters took notice. One Wisconsinite who voted early told WISN, “There’s a lot of outside money coming in, in our state. And I wanted to make sure that my voice is being represented and not other people.”
As of Monday, around 644,000 people in Wisconsin had voted early in person or by mail, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
The Associated Press also projected that the ballot initiative enshrining a requirement to have a photo ID to vote into Wisconsin’s state constitution will pass.
A photo ID is already required by state law to vote in Wisconsin; enshrining it into the state constitution will not establish new requirements, but will likely make it harder to undo the law.
Democratic groups and voting rights organizations criticized the ballot initiative as potentially disenfranchising voters. Supporters of the initiative argue it will strengthen election security in Wisconsin and cement a requirement that has already been in place.
A Marquette University Law School poll taken in late February also found that a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin support photo ID for voting, and separately, a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin said they would support the ballot initiative.
ABC News’ Rachel Scott, Ben Siegel, Will Steakin, Averi Harper, Hannah Demissie, Katherine Faulders and Nicholas Kerr contributed to this report.
El Salvador Press Presidency Office/Anadolu via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — A Maryland man with protected legal status was sent to the notorious prison in El Salvador following an “administrative error,” a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official admitted in a sworn declaration on Monday.
Kilmer Armado Abrego-Garcia who has a U.S. citizen wife and 5-year-old child is currently at CECOT, the notorious prison in El Salvador.
The filing is part of a new lawsuit filed by Abrego-Garcia’s attorneys who are requesting that the government of El Salvador return him to the U.S. after being sent there “because of an administrative error.”
Abrego-Garcia’s attorneys said that he “is not a member of or has no affiliation with Tren de Aragua, MS-13, or any other criminal or street gang” and said that the U.S. government “has never produced an iota of evidence to support this unfounded accusation.”
In response to the error, the government has acknowledged the error but said in a filing that because Abrego-Garcia is no longer in U.S. custody, the court cannot order him to be returned to the U.S. nor can the court order El Salvador to return him.
According to Abrego-Garcia’s attorneys, in 2019, a confidential informant “had advised that Abrego Garcia was an active member” of the gang MS-13. He later filed an I-589 application for asylum and although Abrego-Garcia was found removable, an immigration judge “granted him withholding of removal to El Salvador.”
But earlier this month, Abrego-Garcia was stopped by ICE officers who “informed him that his immigration status had changed.” After being detained over gang affiliations, he was transferred to a detention center in Texas. He was then sent to El Salvador on March 15.
“Abrego-Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was on the third flight and thus had his removal order to El Salvador executed,” said Robert L. Cerna, acting field office director for ICE in a sworn declaration. “This removal was an error.”
In response, the government said Abrego-Garcia had the opportunity to present evidence to show he was not a part of MS-13. “Abrego Garcia had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue,” the government said. “He had the opportunity to give evidence tending to show he was not part of MS-13, which he did not proffer.”
Vice President JD Vance said in a statement on X that Abrego-Garcia was a “convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right” to be in the U.S. Vance added that “it’s gross to get fired up about gang members getting deported while ignoring citizens they victimize.”
In the filing, Yaakov M. Roth Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Division for the Department of Justice said the court lacks jurisdiction to review the removal of Abrego-Garcia and said that the plaintiffs are seeking his release from Salvadoran custody by “financial pressure and diplomacy.”
Roth also added in the filing that there is no clear showing that “Abrego Garcia himself is likely to be tortured or killed in CECOT.”
“While there may be allegations of abuses in other Salvadoran prisons — very few in relation to the large number of detainees — there is no clear showing that Abrego Garcia himself is likely to be tortured or killed in CECOT,” Roth said. “More fundamentally, this Court should defer to the government’s determination that Abrego Garcia will not likely be tortured or killed in El Salvador.”
In the sworn declaration, Cerna said the removal was “carried out in good faith.”
“This was an oversight, and the removal was carried out in good faith based on the existence of a final order of removal and Abrego-Garcia’s purported membership in MS-13,” Cerna said.
ABC News’ Justin Gomez contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker on Tuesday morning was still speaking on the Senate floor, staging a filibuster he started at 7 p.m. Monday night, in what he called a protest against the national “crisis” he said President Donald Trump and Elon Musk had created.
On Monday night, he said he was set to last “as long as [he is] physically able.”
“I’m heading to the Senate floor because Donald Trump and Elon Musk have shown a complete disregard for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the needs of the American people. You can tune in on CSPAN, YouTube, X, and Facebook,” the senator posted on X as he took to the floor.
Booker, who said he would keep the Senate floor open through the duration of his remarks, said at the top of his speech that he “rise[s] with the intention of disrupting the normal business” of the chamber because he believes the country is in “crisis” due to the actions of the White House since Trump started his second term.
“I rise tonight because I believe sincerely that our country is in crisis, and I believe that not in a partisan sense, because so many of the people that have been reaching out to my office in pain, in fear, having their lives upended–so many of them identify themselves as Republicans,” Booker said.
“In just 71 days, the president of the United States has inflicted so much harm on Americans’ safety, financial stability, the core foundations of our democracy and even our aspirations as a people For from our highest offices, a sense of common decency. These are not normal times in America. And they should not be treated as such,” he said.
So long as Booker is holding the floor, the Senate won’t be able to conduct other business unless he temporarily yields.
(WASHINGTON) — Congressional Democrats are renewing their push to expand in vitro fertilization access for military service members by introducing legislation that would require the Department of Defense’s health care program to fund access to IVF for military service members.
The legislative effort, being led in the Senate by Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth and in the House by Democratic Rep. Sara Jacobs, would bring IVF access afforded to military service members in parity with the services available to members of Congress. It would also modify current requirements that service members prove that their infertility challenges are directly connected to service, a barrier that the lawmakers say is often cumbersome or impossible to overcome.
The legislation, Jacobs said in an exclusive interview with ABC News, could be “life-changing” for military service members who are often forced to choose between continuing their military service and starting a family.
“I think it will be huge. We know so many military families are struggling to make ends meet as it is, and are facing really significant fertility challenges. It would be life-changing,” Jacobs told ABC News. “We shouldn’t make them choose between serving our country and building their families.”
Duckworth and Jacobs say that some members of the military have been forced to abandon their military careers because of the lack of infertility treatment coverage by their health care program, called TRICARE. It could present a risk to military readiness, they told ABC News.
“For too many service members, the lack of TRICARE coverage of IVF has left them with only a few choices: beat the odds and prove that their infertility is directly related to their service, pay tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for a chance at a family, forgo having children, or leave the military. This is wrong,” Duckworth said.
It’s also about parity, they said: Starting this year, members of Congress are afforded access to plans that offer coverage for infertility treatments. Jacobs and Duckworth say the same should be true for military service members.
“It makes no sense that members of Congress and the rest of the federal workforce will get this, but military families still won’t,” Jacobs said.
This is not the first time that Jacobs and Duckworth have attempted to expand IVF access for military service members. They tried to get this same provision included in the massive military spending package, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, last year as both parties tried to reassure voters of their support for IVF and other infertility treatments.
Though the proposal made it through the House Armed Services Committee, it never made it into the final version of the bill that President Joe Biden signed into law during the waning days of his presidency.
Similar legislation was separately blocked in the Senate by Republican Sen. James Lankford last year. At the time, Lankford said that while he supports IVF, he was concerned about the indefinite cost of the legislation and the possibility it opened for “future definitions for gene editing or for cloning.”
Duckworth and Jacobs’ newest effort, however, is a stand-alone bill that could be voted on not as an amendment, but as it’s own legislation.
Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran, has been vocal about her own experiences using IVF to conceive her two children. She was involved in multiple efforts to expand IVF access last Congress that were ultimately blocked by Republicans.
She said this new proposal would give Republicans the opportunity to make good on President Donald Trump’s pro-IVF rhetoric that he’s used on the campaign trail and at the White House.
“President Trump pledged to voters on the campaign trail that he would go even further by making IVF free if elected and has repeated the bold-faced lie that he is governing on the principle of ‘promises made, promises kept,'” Duckworth said in a statement. “Republicans can now help him partially fulfill his broken IVF promise by joining our commonsense legislation that would make sure those who answer the call to serve have access to the care they need to build their family.”
No Republican has yet signed on as a cosponsor, but Duckworth and Jacobs are pointing to Trump’s comments as recently as last week touting his support for IVF as a possible boon to their efforts.
On the campaign trail, as an Alabama State Supreme Court ruling temporarily threw IVF access into question, Trump was vocal about his hope to make IVF continually accessible. He referred to himself as the “father of IVF” and issued a statement that said “I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby.”
Trump has continued to make his support for IVF known. As recently as Wednesday when, during a Women’s History Month event, he referred to himself as the “fertilization president.”
“Fertilization. I’m still very proud of it, I don’t care. I’ll be known as the fertilization president, and that’s OK,” Trump said. “That’s not bad. I’ve been called much worse. Actually, I like it, right?”
It’s at this point unclear if the bill, which if pushed by Democrats to the Senate floor as a stand-alone bill would require the unanimous support of the Republican conference, would have the support it needs to pass. It’s also unclear if efforts to include it in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act or other major legislative pushes could lead to passage.
(TALLAHASSEE, FL) — A pair of special elections in Florida for the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday to fill vacancies left by former Republican Reps. Mike Waltz and Matt Gaetz has heated up in recent weeks — especially in the 6th District where Waltz served.
Both lawmakers resigned to join the Trump administration, although Gaetz withdrew his nomination as attorney general when it became clear that he did not have sufficient support in the Senate to become confirmed.
Ahead of the election, Republicans have 218 seats in the House, while Democrats have 213; four seats are vacant. Republicans can only afford to lose two votes before losing their majority for a vote on the House floor.
While Republicans will hold on to their majority regardless of the results in Florida, the election comes amid concerns over maintaining that power — a concern that spilled into the public when President Donald Trump recently asked Rep. Elise Stefanik to withdraw from her nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations rather than give up her seat.
One of the Florida races is in play more than expected, with uncertainty among some Republicans over whether their candidate in the 6th District, state Sen. Randy Fine, can keep the seat safely in Republican hands, given that he has lagged far behind the Democratic candidate, teacher and progressive Josh Weil, in fundraising.
Thus, while the Republicans are favored to win in each district, given that both were ruby-red in 2024, some have speculated that the margin between the Republicans and Democrats in at least the 6th District could be tighter than anticipated.
Special elections usually have lower turnout than on-cycle elections and turnout and results can be tough to predict.
On the fundraising front, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission, Fine has raised or received around $987,000 from late November 2024 through mid-March, while Weil has raised or received more than $9 million since Oct. 1, 2024 through mid-March. Fine also donated $600,000 to himself, according to later filings.
Weil’s campaign has spent more than $8 million of what he’s raised, per the filings; Fine’s campaign had also spent much of its cash on hand before his donations to himself.
But Fine does have Trump’s strong endorsement.
Weil’s campaign has spent more than $8 million of what he’s raised, per the filings; Fine’s campaign had also spent much of its cash on hand before his donations to himself.
But Fine does have Trump’s strong endorsement.
Trump said on Thursday of Fine: “He will be there whenever I need him, and he wants to be there whenever we need him. He wants to be there for you.”
Fine has expressed confidence. He told ABC News Live anchor Diane Macedo on Monday, “We’re doing great,” and later added, “What we’re seeing is angry Democrats, and Republicans having to understand what’s at stake.”
Weil, who was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on Friday, told ABC News Live Prime anchor Linsey Davis on Monday night, “People want someone who will fight for them in Washington and that’s what we’re offering.”
He said that Sanders’ endorsement, which Fine had criticized, seemed to be an asset when talking to voters who appreciated the senator’s message.
In the special election in Florida’s 1st District, located at the westernmost part of the Panhandle, Republican candidate Jimmy Patronis, Florida’s chief financial officer, is facing Democratic candidate Gay Valimont, a gun violence-prevention activist. Valimont was the Democratic nominee in 2024, losing to Gaetz by over 30 percentage points.
Trump has also thrown his support behind Patronis.
The president said in a telephone rally on Thursday, “Jimmy’s done an outstanding job as the Chief Financial Officer of the state of Florida, helping to guide your state to tremendous economic success. And now he wants to keep on fighting for Florida in Congress, and he’s going to do that, and he’ll vote to defend Social Security, protect Medicare, all these things … under great danger with the Democrats.”
Patronis, speaking after Trump, told listeners, “Look, if you’re not fired up to hearing the president right now, then you need to get your pulse checked with President Trump and the White House. A Republican majority in Congress, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to transform this country.”
Meanwhile, Valimont has raised more than Patronis, per Federal Election Commission filings — which show Valimont has raised around $6 million while Patronis raised around $2 million.
“In Congress, I will show Florida’s 1st District what it looks like when the government truly works for the people and our needs,” Valimont wrote on Monday.
-ABC News’ John Parkinson, Lauren Peller and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
(MADISON, WI) — Voters head to the polls on Tuesday in Wisconsin for a hot-button race that could offer a barometer on how Americans are feeling at this point in President Donald Trump’s second term.
Republican-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel and Democratic-backed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford are the candidates in Tuesday’s marquee state Supreme Court race, which is technically nonpartisan — but it has become the center of a political firestorm, as well as the target of millions spent by groups linked to tech billionaire and key Trump adviser Elon Musk.
The election will determine which of the candidates, vying to replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, will help determine the ideological bent of the court, which currently leans liberal.
“This is playing out like a presidential-style election. You turn on your TV, any local broadcast station here across the state of Wisconsin, you are inundated with political-type ads for what is technically a nonpartisan judicial race, but this is a full-on political race … this is becoming a true litmus test for the first 100 days of the Trump administration,” Matt Smith, political director at Milwaukee’s ABC affiliate WISN-TV, told ABC News Live anchor Diane Macedo last week.
The winner of this race will join the bench as the court potentially grapples with key voter issues such as abortion access and redistricting. For example, there is a Wisconsin Supreme Court case regarding if the Wisconsin Constitution protects the right to an abortion, which the court might consider after the new justice is seated.
The race could also preview how voters in the battleground state feel a few months into Trump’s second term — especially as Musk and his work with the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency becomes a key issue given his groups’ investments in the race.
Musk has indicated he is interested in the race because of the possibility that the court takes on redistricting cases — which could impact the balance of power in the U.S. House if rulings cause congressional maps to be redrawn.
“That is why it is so significant, and whichever party controls the House, to a significant degree, controls the country which then steers the course of Western civilization,” Musk said at a high-profile town hall on Sunday in Green Bay.
Musk has implied “the future of civilization” is at stake with the race. On Sunday, the tech billionaire also controversially gave away two $1 million checks to attendees at a rally in his latest effort to support Schimel.
Schimel, the candidate backed by Republicans, is a former state attorney general and a circuit court judge in Waukesha County. He has received almost $20 million in support (such as spending for TV ads) as of Monday from groups linked to Musk, per a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Schimel has also received endorsements from Trump, Musk, Donald Trump, Jr., and other key conservative figures.
Schimel has welcomed the conservative support, yet said at a rally last week that he would treat any case fairly, including if it was a case brought by Trump.
However, Crawford and her allies have alleged he would not treat cases involving Trump or Musk fairly, and she has made Musk a main target of her campaign.
Schimel, asked on Thursday by ABC affiliate WISN to share his closing argument ahead of the final days in the race, said, “My closing argument is that people need to take this race seriously. So much is at stake. We have to restore objectivity to this court right now … We have to put the court back in its proper role where it’s not making the law. It’s not going through a political agenda. It is applying the law the way the legislature writes it, to the facts of the case.”
Crawford, backed by Democrats, is a Dane County circuit court judge and a former private attorney. At points, she represented Democratic-aligned groups such as Planned Parenthood, an organization supporting abortion access.
Major liberal donors such as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Democratic donor George Soros have given money to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and the state party has donated $2 million to Crawford. The national Democratic Party has also invested in the race.
Crawford told WISN that her closing argument was about an impartial court: “It’s about making sure that we have a Supreme Court that is fair and impartial in interpreting our laws to protect the rights of Wisconsinites. The other choice is an extreme partisan, someone who is selling out to special interests, has a long history of doing that, and has now tied himself to Elon Musk.”
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as of Monday, more than $90 million has been spent in the race — making it the most expensive judicial election in the nation’s history. That amount includes more than $49 million spent by Schimel or groups supporting him, and more than $40 million spent by Crawford or groups supporting her.
The nonprofit says that the previous record for spending in a state supreme court race was in Wisconsin’s 2023 state supreme court election, when $56 million was spent.
Voters have taken notice. One Wisconsinite who voted early told WISN, “There’s a lot of outside money coming in, in our state. And I wanted to make sure that my voice is being represented and not other people.”
As of Monday, around 644,000 people in Wisconsin have voted early in person or by mail, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Voters in Wisconsin will also vote on a ballot initiative over whether to enshrine requiring a photo ID to vote into the state constitution. Voter ID is already required by state law; enshrining it into the state constitution would not establish new requirements, but would likely make it harder to ever undo the law.
Democratic groups and voting rights organizations have criticized the ballot initiative as potentially disenfranchising voters. Supporters of the initiative argue it will strengthen election security in Wisconsin and is cementing a requirement that has already been in place.
A Marquette University Law School poll taken in late February also found that a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin support photo ID for voting, and separately, a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin said they would support the ballot initiative.
ABC News’ Rachel Scott, Ben Siegel, Will Steakin, Averi Harper, Hannah Demissie and Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.
(BOSTON) — The Department of Education and other agencies are reviewing Harvard University for fostering antisemitism on its campus, Secretary Linda McMahon said Monday.
“Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination — all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry — has put its reputation in serious jeopardy,” McMahon said in a release.
“Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus,” she said.
The Education Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration are joining in the comprehensive review of the school.
The move comes as the administration’s joint task force doubles down on removing antisemitic conduct and harassment from elite universities. The administration stripped Columbia University of $400 million in grants earlier this month after a task force investigation found inaction by the school to protect Jewish students.
Monday’s actions against Harvard come after a similar review led to Columbia agreeing to comply with nine preconditions for further negotiations regarding a return of canceled federal funds, according to the release.
The task force will review hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to Harvard and its affiliates, according to the release.
The agencies will also review another nearly $9 billion in grants to Harvard to ensure it’s in compliance with “federal regulations” and “civil rights responsibilities,” the release said.
In response to the review, Harvard President Alan Garber released a statement saying, “We fully embrace the important goal of combatting antisemitism, one of the most insidious forms of bigotry.”
“It is present on our campus,” Garber continued, “I have experienced antisemitism directly, even while serving as president, and I know how damaging it can be to a student who has come to learn and make friends at a college or university.”
Garber said, however, that the $9 billion in federal funding that is “at stake” as the university works to combat antisemitism could halt “life-saving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation.”
“As an institution and as a community, we acknowledge our shortcomings, pursue needed change, and build stronger bonds that enable all to thrive,” Garber added.
Harvard alum Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., told ABC News he believes too many universities have gone unchecked for tent encampments and hostile demonstrations that involved students overtaking buildings on campus in response to the Israel-Hamas conflict that broke out after Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Kiley, who sits on the House Education and Workforce Committee, called the administration’s review “incredibly refreshing” and a proactive solution to protect the civil rights and safety of Harvard’s Jewish students.
“We need to make sure that the rules are enforced, that civil rights laws are abided by and that there are consequences for illegal activity,” Kiley said.
Oregon Democratic Rep. Suzanne Bonamici is also a member of the Education and Workforce Committee and alongside Rep. Kiley, Bonamici serves on the subcommittee on higher education.
Bonamici told ABC News she believes the administration has been pushing a concerning attack on institutions of higher education.
She said threatening federal funding is a bridge too far. “There are ways to address anti-Semitism that don’t involve this type of threat,” Bonamici said, adding, “What they’re trying to do is intimidate these universities, like they’re doing with law firms, intimidate them into taking positions that are antithetical to higher education and free thought and critical thinking, so it’s extremely concerning.”
Protests erupted on college campuses around the country after civilian casualties mounted in Gaza as Israel launched a military campaign in response to Oct. 7, vowing to eradicate Hamas — which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization.
The federal response comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing McMahon to abolish the Department of Education and another order that takes measures to “vigorously” combat antisemitism.
The Harvard review also highlights the administration’s promise to ensure colleges would suffer the federal consequences if they foster antisemitic protests and demonstrations in the wake of Oct. 7.
On the campaign trail, Trump said, “My promise to Jewish Americans is this: With your vote, I will be your defender, your protector, and I will be the best friend Jewish Americans have ever had in the White House.”
Meanwhile, Congress is investigating Harvard and nearly a dozen other schools for allegedly fostering antisemitism on campus.
A House Education and Workforce Committee report last fall found many universities have failed to adequately discipline antisemitic conduct. A summary of the more than 100-page report alleges the “overwhelming majority” of students accused of antisemitic harassment or other acts of antisemitism on campuses faced minimal disciplinary action for their alleged violations.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has granted clemency to a pair of Hunter Biden’s former business partners, both of whom accused former President Joe Biden’s son of improperly leveraging his father’s political power to broker overseas business relationships.
Last Tuesday, Trump issued a full pardon to Devon Archer, who was sentenced to more than a year in prison for defrauding a Native American tribal entity in 2022.
Later in the week, Trump commuted the 189-month sentence of Jason Galanis for his role in multiple fraudulent schemes.
Archer and Galanis charted a similar path to their presidential pardons: Both men brokered business ties with Hunter Biden, were later found guilty of unrelated fraud schemes, pleaded with the Biden administration for executive clemency, and, when rebuffed, publicly accused Hunter Biden of improperly trading on his family name to secure overseas business deals.
Galanis went a step further than Archer by retaining a high-powered Washington lawyer with close ties to the Trump political machine: Mark Paoletta, whom Trump recently tapped for general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Paoletta did not respond to a request for comment regarding Galanis’ commutation.
Last year, Galanis testified before the House Oversight Committee about the Biden family’s business arrangements from a jail cell in Alabama. He asserted that Joe Biden was more engaged in Hunter Biden’s business dealings than the former president publicly let on, and that “the entire value add of Hunter Biden to our business was his family name and his access to his father, Vice President Joe Biden.”
Joe Biden has forcefully denied any wrongdoing and Republicans were unable to find evidence that he used his political perch to support his son’s businesses. A House impeachment inquiry concluded last August without any articles of impeachment drawn up.
Matthew Schwartz, an attorney for Archer, told ABC News that “the American jury system is an amazing thing, but as the trial judge held in finding serious questions about Devon Archer’s innocence, sometimes juries get it wrong.”
Schwartz said that Trump’s “pardon corrects a serious injustice, and finally allows an innocent man to be free of the threat of misguided prosecution. Mr. Archer is deeply appreciative of the President.”
