(WASHINGTON) — Amid escalating rhetoric from former President Donald Trump threatening to prosecute his enemies should he win the 2024 election, Attorney General Merrick Garland will deliver remarks to the Justice Department workforce Thursday urging they continue to adhere to longstanding principles intended to protect DOJ from improper politicization.
“Our norms are a promise that we will fiercely protect the independence of this Department from political interference in our criminal investigations,” Garland will say, according to excerpts of his prepared remarks provided to reporters.
Garland will add, “Our norms are a promise that we will not allow this Department to be used as a political weapon. And our norms are a promise that we will not allow this nation to become a country where law enforcement is treated as an apparatus of politics.”
The remarks come as Garland has sought to refute allegations from Trump and his allies of weaponization of the department through its prosecution of individuals involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, as well as Special Counsel Jack Smith’s dueling prosecutions of Trump himself for his alleged mishandling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Those close to Garland have disputed those accusations as baseless — pointing in part to DOJ’s prosecution and conviction of Democrats like disgraced New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez on corruption charges as well as the separate Special Counsel prosecutions of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.
Trump and his allies, in turn, have ramped up in recent months their promises to use the Justice Department as a tool of retribution against his political enemies — with Trump in a Truth Social post over the weekend threatening “long term prison sentences” for “Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials” he baselessly accused of being involved in “cheating” in the 2020 and 2024 elections.
According to the excerpts, Garland will forcefully rebuke what he describes as a “dangerous — and outrageous” spike in threats targeting DOJ employees under his tenure.
“Over the past three and a half years, there has been an escalation of attacks on the Justice Department’s career lawyers, agents, and other personnel that go far beyond public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate and necessary oversight of our work,” Garland will say. “These attacks have come in the form of conspiracy theories, dangerous falsehoods, efforts to bully and intimidate career public servants by repeatedly and publicly singling them out, and threats of actual violence.”
Garland will use his remarks specifically to point to steps taken during his tenure he says have been aimed at isolating the department from allegations of politicization, such as re-implementing policies intended to limit contacts with the White House.
Those policies, however, were complicated by the Supreme Court’s July ruling that effectively granted Trump immunity in his federal election subversion case over his alleged efforts to use the Justice Department to overturn the election. The court’s conservative majority determined that Trump and other presidents should be shielded from any criminal liability for contacts with the DOJ, that they said clearly fall within the chief executive’s core powers.
As a result, Special Counsel Smith returned a superseding indictment two weeks ago against Trump that stripped out any mentions of the alleged DOJ plot.
Taylor Swift performs on stage during the “Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour” at Wembley Stadium in London, August 15, 2024. (Kate Green/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Taylor Swift made headlines after Tuesday night’s debate by endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president, and experts are already looking at the pop star’s possible influence on the 2024 election.
“If you self-identify as someone who sees the world like Taylor Swift does, you might go, ‘Huh, maybe I should be voting like that also,'” Marcus Collins, a marketing professor at the University of Michigan and author of the book For the Culture, told ABC News. “It sort of sends a bat signal for what potentially is acceptable for people like me.”
“This sort of social signaling is important to us,” he continued. “It helps us define who we are, our identity, what to think, how to behave.”
These effects can be subtle but significant, Collins said. For example, a conservative Swiftie might find those two identities at odds with each other and begin to question their beliefs.
“People may find themselves in cognitive dissonance, where their identity and how they see the world are in conflict with other parts of their identity,” he said. “There has to be some sense of reconciliation.”
The pop superstar said Tuesday night that she would be voting for Harris “because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.”
Swift said she was voting for the Harris-Tim Walz ticket after doing her research and, in her post, encouraged her Instagram followers to do their own. She also shared a link to Vote.org, a resource to help people register to vote in their home state.
“She knows that she’s speaking to a number of people who will be voting either for the first time ever or for the first time for a president,” Megan Duncan, an associate professor at Virginia Tech specializing in political communication, told ABC News. “And she knows that getting that bit of education about how to register and that you can vote early in many states is the stuff that celebrities are effective at.”
This isn’t the first time Swift has encouraged her fans to register to vote. In 2018 and 2023, she also made Instagram posts about voter registration, and tens of thousands of people signed up in the days that followed.
Swift’s support for Harris shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Though once publicly apolitical, Swift has become more outspoken about her political beliefs in recent years. In 2020, she endorsed President Joe Biden and lambasted then-President Donald Trump for “stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism” and putting “millions of Americans’ lives at risk in an effort to hold on to power.”
Fans had long anticipated her making an endorsement in the 2024 race. Much of her fanbase is young — predominately millennials and Gen Z — a demographic that consistently has lower voter turnout than older generations and whose members may have never voted.
It’s not just young people Swift is in a position to sway. Many of her fans belong to another critical demographic: white women, over half of whom voted red in both 2016 and 2020.
“It’s a huge voter block — and not only that, but it’s a voter block that we’ve seen be consequential with regards to elections, particularly with Donald Trump,” Collins told ABC News.
How Swift’s endorsement will shape the election is yet to be seen, but her message’s reach has already been massive. The General Services Administration told ABC News that, as of 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, more than 330,000 people had visited the voter registration site linked by Swift.
Not long after Swift’s endorsement, a spokesperson for the vice president said Harris was “very proud” to have the singer’s support and said it came as a complete surprise.
(WASHINGTON) — The act of certifying the presidential election results will now be given the highest security designation the federal government makes available, the Department of Homeland Security announced Wednesday.
Jan. 6, 2025, will now be designated a National Special Security Event (NSSE) by the Department of Homeland Security — on par with events like the Democratic and Republican national conventions. This designation allows for “significant resources from the federal government, as well as from state and local partners, to be utilized in a comprehensive security plan,” according to the agency.
“National Special Security Events are events of the highest national significance,” Eric Ranaghan, the special agent in charge of the U.S. Secret Service’s Dignitary Protective Division, said in a statement. “The U.S. Secret Service, in collaboration with our federal, state, and local partners are committed to developing and implementing a comprehensive and integrated security plan to ensure the safety and security of this event and its participants.”
An NSSE is designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security and is led by the Secret Service.
Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser made a request for the designation, according to the agency.
Jan. 6 is a formality, but the last time Congress attempted to certify the results of the presidential election, a group of supporters of former President Donald Trump breached the Capitol in an attempt to stop it.
The results of Jan. 6 resulted in hundreds of prosecutions by the Justice Department and criminal charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing.
Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speak during a presidential debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Sept. 10, 2024. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Climate change remains on the backburner of the 2024 election following little mention of environmental policy during the first — and possibly only — debate between the two presidential candidates.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump faced off for the first time on Tuesday night from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, where neither candidate dedicated ample time to addressing what they would do to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and bolster the clean energy industry.
“I think what we learned last night is that climate really is not on the ballot this fall,” Leah Aronowsky, a science historian at the Columbia Climate School, whose research has focused on the history of climate science and climate denialism, told ABC News.
Climate change has not taken center stage this election cycle due to other topics — such as the economy, immigration and abortion — but that doesn’t mean that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is any less important, John Abraham, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, told ABC News.
The first mention of greenhouse gas emissions came amid Trump’s claims that he “built one of the strongest economies in the history of the world.” The former president accused the Biden administration of enacting policies that would destroy the domestic oil industry and cause inflation to worsen.
But, the Biden administration produced 12.9 million barrels per day in 2023, breaking the record set in 2019 at 12.3 million barrels, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows.
During the debate, Harris touted the Biden administration bringing domestic gas production to “historic levels.” Lena Moffitt, executive director of the environmental organization Evergreen Action, an environmental nonprofit, told ABC News the reference was likely an effort to entice a broad array of voters by promising to extend commitment to fossil fuel extraction while also building out a renewable energy industry and focusing more on electric vehicles.
Harris was also questioned during the debate on whether she has changed her “values” on whether to ban fracking.
Reliance on domestic stores of oil necessitates continued fracking, Harris said, making clear that she will not ban the technique used to extract oil and gas from underground rock formations, despite Trump’s insistence that she had been against it for “12 years.”
ABC News could not identify why Trump claimed Harris had been claiming for 12 years that she would ban fracking.
In 2016, while attorney general of California, Harris sued the U.S. Interior Department over its environmental assessment on the California coastline, which would have allowed fracking on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf. Since 2020, Harris has made it “very clear” that she will not ban fracking, she said during the debate.
“I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases on fracking,” she said. “My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.”
The only question explicitly about climate change came at the very end, just before the candidates’ closing arguments.
When asked what she would do to fight climate change, Harris first reminded voters that Trump has described the climate crisis as a “hoax” before talking about where Americans are being hit hardest by extreme weather events: their homes.
Homeowners in states that experience extreme weather events are increasingly being denied home insurance, or premiums are “being jacked up,” Harris said.
“You ask anybody who has been the victim of what that means — in terms of losing their home, having nowhere to go,” Harris said.
Appealing to homeowners was a smart move on Harris’ part, Aronowsky said, adding that homeowners will take the brunt of the economic hardships of the extreme weather that is predicted to increase as global temperatures continue to rise.
“We’re going to see more and more insurance companies dropping the homeowners from policies, Americans getting hit with exorbitant insurance premiums,” she said. “So, it’s really a looming political crisis.”
Harris said that young Americans “care deeply” about climate change. It’s because they’ve seen first-hand how climate change can affect their lives, Moffitt said.
“It is an issue that a lot of Americans really care about, especially young voters,” Moffitt told ABC News.
Trump did not answer the question on climate change, instead focusing on jobs that he said are no longer in existence due to Chinese-owned auto plants being built in Mexico.
“They lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs this last month,” Trump said. “It’s going — they’re all leaving.”
Investing in the clean energy industry will actually create more jobs, Abraham said. The U.S. now has an opportunity to participate in the green energy economy to power the country, which will create high-tech, high-paid jobs, he said.
“I think it’s a real missed opportunity for Republicans,” Abraham said. “If you’re a fiscal conservative, you want to be part of this new energy economy and make money off it.”
Clean energy employment increased by 142,000 jobs in 2023, according to a U.S. Department of Energy report released last month.
With the passing of the landmark Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration has made more progress than any previous administration on environmental policy, the experts said.
But environmental advocates and policymakers will have to find a way going forward to help the public understand how climate change will affect Americans in their everyday lives, Aronowsky said.
“It’s becoming clear that talking about climate as a … standalone issue is a political dead end,” she said.
(SPRINGFIELD, Ohio) — Shortly before the ABC News presidential debate on Tuesday, the parents of a child who was killed in a bus crash caused by a Haitian immigrant in Springfield, Ohio, last year made an emotional plea for former President Donald Trump, vice presidential candidate JD Vance and others to stop using the death of their child “as a political tool.”
“They have spoken my son’s name and used his death for political gain,” said Nathan Clark, who spoke at a Springfield City Commission hearing. Flanked by his wife Danielle, Clark said “My son was not murdered. He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti.”
“I wish that my son, Aiden Clark, was killed by a 60-year-old white man. I bet you never thought anyone would ever say something so blunt. But if that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate-spewing people would leave us alone,” he said tearfully.
Aiden Clark was killed last year when a minivan driven by Hemanio Joseph crashed into his school bus. Joseph, whose legal team says has Temporary Protected Status (TPS), was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and vehicular homicide and sentenced to nine to 13 years in prison in May. Joseph’s team has filed to appeal the conviction.
Some Haitian nationals present in the United States are eligible for TPS, which provides them with temporary permission to live and work in the country legally. The Department of Homeland Security designates certain countries for TPS when it deems it too dangerous for migrants to return due civil unrest, natural disasters, or other reasons.
Nathan Clark called for an apology from Vance, Trump, Bernie Moreno, the Republican Senate candidate in Ohio, and Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy, who he called “morally bankrupt,” for spinning Aiden’s death “towards hate.”
“This needs to stop now,” he said. “They can vomit all the hate they want about illegal immigrants, the border crisis, and even untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members. However, they are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed, to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio.”
The claims about the Haitian community in Springfield spread quickly through conservative circles with accounts like that of the House Judiciary Committee Republicans using AI tools to show Trump holding cats and ducks, portraying him as a savior of animals.
One of the main images circulating online showing a man holding a dead goose was taken not in Springfield, but in Columbus, Ohio, two months ago. The resident who captured the image told ABC News he was surprised to see his image used to “ push false narratives.”
In a Tuesday post on X, Vance made debunked claims about Haitian migrants eating people’s pets in the town — a claim he later conceded could be false.
“In the last several weeks, my office has received many inquiries from actual residents of Springfield who’ve said their neighbors’ pets or local wildlife were abducted by Haitian migrants,” Vance wrote on X. “It’s possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false.”
But then he went on to say, “Do you know what’s confirmed? That a child was murdered by a Haitian migrant who had no right to be here.”
Vance then criticized Harris for the Biden administration’s Temporary Protected Status extension for tens of thousands of Haitian migrants.
A spokesperson for Vance did not respond when ABC News asked for comment and more information about the incident he described in the post.
Asked for comment on the Clarks’ plea, Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, said, “We are deeply sorry to the Clark family for the loss of their son. We hope the media will continue to cover the stories of the very real suffering and tragedies experienced by the people of Springfield, Ohio due to the influx of illegal Haitian immigrants in their community.”
At Tuesday’s debate, Trump brought up the unsubstantiated claims circulating online regarding immigrants in Springfield.
Bryan Heck, Springfield’s city manager, also condemned the misinformation being spread on social media and in the political arena.
“Our Springfield community is making notable progress that contributes to its growing appeal to new residents, including immigrants,” Heck said in an online statement. “This development is underpinned by our city’s diverse and robust industrial base that encompasses the technology, automotive, food production and distribution sectors. The growth in our workforce population has supported the expansion of local businesses, contributed to the stabilization of the local economy. Our commitment to promoting a business-friendly environment has attracted new enterprises to our region and we’ll continue to focus on collaborating with industry leaders who seek to establish operations here.”
He also stated that challenges related to the growing immigrant population are from the pace of the growth and not the growth itself.
“These rumors will not distract us from addressing the real strain on our resources including the impact to our schools, healthcare system and first responders,” Heck said.
Migrants have been drawn to the region because of the low cost of living and work opportunities, the city says on its site. The city estimates there are around 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants living in the county, and the rapid rise in population has strained housing, health care, and school resources.
But the city also says that the migrants are in the country legally and that many are recipients of Temporary Protected Status.
The Haitian Bridge Alliance condemned “baseless and inflammatory” claims about Haitian migrants, arguing they “not only perpetuate harmful stereotypes but also contribute to the dangerous stigmatization of immigrant communities, particularly Black immigrants from the Republic of Haiti.”
The group has also called for an apology.
At Tuesday’s debate, Trump ranted about migrants from Haiti stealing and eating people’s pets.
“They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame.”
Bryan Heck, Springfield’s city manager, also condemned the misinformation being spread on social media and in the political arena.
“Our Springfield community is making notable progress that contributes to its growing appeal to new residents, including immigrants,” Heck said in an online statement. “This development is underpinned by our city’s diverse and robust industrial base that encompasses the technology, automotive, food production and distribution sectors. The growth in our workforce population has supported the expansion of local businesses, contributed to the stabilization of the local economy. Our commitment to promoting a business-friendly environment has attracted new enterprises to our region and we’ll continue to focus on collaborating with industry leaders who seek to establish operations here.”
He also stated that challenges related to the growing immigrant population are from the pace of the growth and not the growth itself.
“These rumors will not distract us from addressing the real strain on our resources including the impact to our schools, healthcare system and first responders,” Heck said.
Migrants have been drawn to the region because of the low cost of living and work opportunities, the city says on its site. The city estimates there are around 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants living in the county, and the rapid rise in population has strained housing, health care, and school resources.
But the city also says that the migrants are in the country legally and that many are recipients of TPS.
The Haitian Bridge Alliance condemned “baseless and inflammatory” claims about Haitian migrants, arguing they “not only perpetuate harmful stereotypes but also contribute to the dangerous stigmatization of immigrant communities, particularly Black immigrants from the Republic of Haiti.”
The group has also called for an apology.
ABC News’ Julia Reinstein and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Voters across the country tuned in to the ABC News presidential debate on Tuesday night to see Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump discuss issues and share their visions for the country.
Many were looking to see how Harris defined herself on the debate stage, especially given that she entered the race relatively late as a presidential candidate.
Some undecided or formerly undecided voters spoke with ABC News both before and after the debate.
Before the debate, they shared what they were hoping to see — and after, if they thought Harris made the case for herself as a presidential candidate as well as their thoughts a potential second debate between Trump and Harris. These voters also previously spoke with ABC News earlier in the election cycle, including before President Joe Biden dropped out of the race.
Patrick O’Rourke, a retired scientist and independent voter from Georgia, said ahead of the debate that he did not trust Harris to be a “unifier” for the country.
“If I can force myself to vote for VP Harris, it will be with the hope of [split-party control between the presidency and Congress] … I hope for a president who can respect the constitution and earn the respect of our country,” he told ABC News by text.
At 10:09 p.m. ET, as the debate was still on air, he texted ABC News that he had turned off the debate.
“Former President Trump has forced me into voting for VP Harris,” he said. The reasons: because of how Trump discussed Ashli Babbit — a Trump supporter who was fatally shot during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol — whom the former president said “was shot by an out-of-control police officer;” and after Trump promoted being endorsed by Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, who is considered an authoritarian leader.
That doesn’t mean he thinks Harris made a strong positive case or defined herself enough, though.
Asked how he felt about her performance, O’Rourke said, “Still don’t know who she is other than not Donald Trump. Right now, that’s enough.”
Many voters feel they could benefit from more information about Harris and her platforms. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that 28% of likely voters said they feel they need to still learn more about Harris, while only 9% of likely voters felt that way about Trump.
O’Rourke said on Wednesday morning that he’s also not interested in another debate.
“One is enough for this cycle. I do not need to see another debate … I don’t need the candidates telling me what the other one’s policies are,” O’Rourke said.
But he said he’d like to see interviews with the candidates where they talk about economic policy, foreign affairs and civil justice priorities.
Rebecca Bakker, a registered nursing professor who lives near Grand Rapids, Michigan, told ABC News by text ahead of the debate that she was still undecided — although she had said beforehand she was not supporting Trump.
She was hoping to hear Harris “drill down on a clear economic message,” as well as clarity from her on how she would solve foreign policy and border issues.
Bakker told ABC News after the debate that the showing solidified her decision to not vote for Trump, who did not come across to her as “presidential” or as outlining clear policies.
“I think Harris did a great job to bait him so he [would] unravel during the debate and this worked to her advantage,” she said by text, but she felt Harris was still a bit “murky” on how her positions on some issues have changed.
“I remain undecided- she didn’t sway me enough (yet) to vote for her but for sure [Trump] swayed me enough NOT to vote for him,” Bakker wrote.
Bakker said she would like another debate to see if either candidate “reframes their narrative to address specifics on policies without ‘one of them’ losing focus and returning to childish behavior,” she wrote, adding she wants to see Harris discuss the economy and border issues more directly.
“So far, I don’t have a clear idea of her plan to address these areas.”
Karen Hughes, an independent voter and retired parole and probation specialist from Nevada, had previously been undecided but had decided to begrudgingly vote for Biden before he left the race in July. Ahead of the debate, Hughes told ABC News by text she was “hoping to see some policy discussions tonight. I’m interested in hearing Trump’s (final) position on abortion, and Harris’s explanation for why she won’t ban fracking.”
The debate affirmed her choice to vote for Harris, Hughes said on Wednesday, as she felt Harris “presents as competent, positive, and very sure of herself. I felt she knew exactly to get into Trump’s head and he fell for it every time,” Hughes said — although she said she felt Harris was still unclear about the shift in her position on fracking. Hughes also criticized Trump’s invocation of “wild conspiracy theories.”
But she’s not looking for another debate: “I think this one was good enough.”
Ian Mackintosh, a voter from Pennsylvania who lives in the Pittsburgh area, also said he hoped ahead of the debate to hear about policy. On Wednesday, he told ABC News by text, “Honestly, I thought it was a complete waste of 90 minutes. If anything, it moved me away from both candidates.”
While he said he understands the challenges of going in depth on complex policy stances in two minutes, it “could have been more substantial” with “less baiting and intentionally riling up the other candidate.”
Mackintosh said he is also disillusioned by Harris’ stance on Israel and Gaza, which he feels is the same as Biden’s.
He said he would not be interested in watching a second debate, and added, “After last night’s debacle I will probably only vote down-ballot.”
Brendan Fitzsimmons, a physician from Wyoming who is a Republican but does not support Trump, told ABC News by text before the debate that he did not expect much from the candidates, “although I would enjoy it if there is a lot of entertainment to it,” he said.
Fitzsimmons admitted that going into the debate, he didn’t feel sold on Harris: “I think she’ll be a terrible president, but I hope she wins,” calling her the “lesser of two evils.”
The morning after the debate, Fitzsimmons said the night changed how he was feeling about Harris.
“I enjoyed the debate and I thought they were both fairly strong, but all in all, Harris was stronger and won the debate and I think showed to a lot of people that she can be president … I am very concerned about foreign affairs, and I think she may be OK in that way,” he told ABC News by text.
Matthew Labkovski, a Republican voter from Florida who supported former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley during the Republican presidential primaries, told ABC News by text before the debate that he hoped to see the candidates discuss policy, and not engage in personal attacks. He said Tuesday evening that he was currently not planning on voting for president.
After the debate, Labkovski said on Wednesday, “I think it actually convinced me not to vote for Donald Trump. All I saw was fear mongering from him and what seemed to be a stretching of the truth,” he said, particularly when it came to Trump’s false claims about abortion and about a false conspiracy theory over immigrants eating pets.
“I am still not convinced though with Harris, as I didn’t get enough policy with her in this debate. To be honest, I would love another debate to see if I was actually comfortable in voting for her,” he said.
Labkovski also criticized Harris’ laughter during the debate, saying that he wished she had remained more even-keeled.
He added that he would have liked her to discuss how she would implement the policies she was talking about.
“How is she going to fight inflation? How is she going to bring peace? That’s what I was hoping the debate would bring … I needed more from her to actually sway from not voting in the presidential slot.”
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump has begun to shut down the possibility of a second match against Vice President Kamala Harris after debating her Tuesday night, claiming he doesn’t need to debate her again because he won the debate.
“Well she wants a second debate because she lost tonight, very badly,” Trump told ABC News late Tuesday night during a surprise appearance in the spin room after participating in the presidential debate hosted by ABC News in Philadelphia.
“So, we’ll, you know, think about that. But she immediately called for a second,” Trump said, refusing to commit whether he’d participate.
Less than an hour after the ABC News presidential debate ended Tuesday night, Harris’ campaign called for another matchup. The campaign put out an email touting her performance at the debate and blasting Trump for his responses and demeanor.
Pressed by ABC News why Trump wouldn’t commit if she lost the debate, Trump said he’s looking at polls, boasting about what he believed is a lead over Harris in polling numbers. Harris leads Trump, 47% to 44%, according 538’s polling average.
Trump’s non-commitment to a second debate comes after the former president in May said he accepted what was going to be a fourth presidential debate with NBC News between Trump and then-candidate President Joe Biden — after debates with CNN, ABC News and Fox News.
In August, after Harris took over the top of the Democratic ticket, Trump again agreed to participate in a debate hosted by NBC, after ABC News and Fox News’ debates. Trump ended up doing a town hall with Fox News last week after Harris declined to participate.
But since the ABC News debate, Trump has been gradually escalating the rhetoric that he doesn’t need a second match with Harris, telling Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday night, “I sort of think maybe I shouldn’t do it.”
“I have to think about it, but if you won the debate, I sort of think maybe I shouldn’t do it. Why should I do another debate?” Trump said on “Hannity.”
During his visit to the Shanksville Volunteer Fire Department in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Wednesday afternoon to honor the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Trump said he was thinking about the possibility of a second debate.
“We’re looking at it, but, you know, when you win, you don’t really necessarily have to do it a second time. So we’ll see, but we had a, I thought we had a great debate last night,” Trump said. “I just don’t know. We’ll think about it.”
On Wednesday morning, Trump called into “Fox and Friends” and said he’d be “less inclined to” do a second debate with Harris. Still, he kept his options open without shutting down the possibility of a second debate completely: “Let’s see what happens.”
And on Wednesday afternoon, Trump posted on his social media site, “In the World of Boxing or UFC, when a Fighter gets beaten or knocked out, they get up and scream, ‘I DEMAND A REMATCH, I DEMAND A REMATCH!'”
“Well, it’s no different with a Debate,” he continued. “She was beaten badly last night. Every Poll has us WINNING, in one case, 92-8, so why would I do a Rematch?”
538 has collected three national polls and one swing-state poll that were conducted since the debate. In all of them, more people who watched the debate said Harris won the debate than said Trump did. On average, 57% of debate watchers nationally said Harris turned in the better performance; only 34% said Trump did.
Showing up in the spin room after the debate, Trump claimed Tuesday night was his “best debate ever,” suggesting his spin room visit had nothing to do with needing to clean up his debate performance.
“We thought it was our best debate ever. It was my best debate ever,” Trump said to a large group of reporters that surrounded him in the spin room.
“It showed how weak they are, how pathetic they are, and what they’re doing to destroy our country, on the border, with foreign trade, with everything. And, I think it was the best debate I’ve ever personally — that I’ve had,” Trump continued.
But after the debate, Lara Trump, the former president’s daughter-in-law and Republican National Committee co-chair who served as the former president’s surrogate in the spin room, said he had a “fine night,” adding she wished there were more debates.
“I think he had a night that we expected to see, which is that Donald Trump was four years in the White House. We all remember how our lives were then,” Lara Trump said when asked about Trump’s performance.
Pressed by reporters if she means her father-in-law didn’t have a great night, Lara Trump said, “I mean, he had a fine night,” and then added: “He had a night that was absolutely necessary, and I am so happy we finally got to see these two people on the stage.”
“I wish we had two more debates. We usually have three presidential debates. Kamala Harris has said — she only wants one, so far,” Lara Trump said just minutes before the Harris campaign called for a second debate. “Donald Trump would certainly be willing to do another debate.”
Some Democrats on Capitol Hill said Wednesday weighed in on the prospect of another Harris-Trump debate.
Sen. Tim Kaine said he supports another presidential debate between Harris and Trump, but said he didn’t think the former president would agree.
“I’m sort of not expecting that President Trump will accept a second debate, but [Harris] is very willing to do it and that’s good,” Kaine said.
Asked if another debate is needed, Sen. Cory Booker said “I don’t know about the word ‘needs.'”
“I mean this one debate was so revelatory, it so exposed Donald Trump,” Booker said. “I think it was a reminder for a lot of people just how unhinged and unchecked this guy is; how he can’t control himself.”
ABC News’ Allison Pecorin contributed to this report.
Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — During the presidential debate Tuesday, former President Donald Trump criticized Vice President Kamala Harris on her support for taxpayer-funded medical care for transgender individuals.
“Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison,” Trump said. “This is a radical left liberal that would do this.”
The comment was the only mention of the LGBTQ+ community on the debate stage.
Trump’s comments appear to refer to a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire filled out by then-Sen. Harris during her first presidential bid.
The questionnaire asked: “As President, will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care? If yes, how will you do so?”
She responded yes, adding that “it is important that transgender individuals who rely on the state for care receive the treatment they need, which includes access to treatment associated with gender transition.”
She noted that as the California state attorney general, she backed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation decision to provide gender transition surgery to state inmates.
In 2015, while Harris was the attorney general, California and the Transgender Law Center reached a historic settlement to move a transgender woman inmate to a women’s correctional facility and provide her with transgender medical care that had been deemed medically necessary by several medical and mental health clinicians, according to the settlement agreement.
The case was hailed by LGBTQ activists, who said it would impact incarcerated trans people nationwide.
Harris’ response in the ACLU questionnaire continued, adding that she supported policies to allow federal inmates to obtain “medically necessary care for gender transition” while incarcerated.
“I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment,” she wrote.
Harris has not publicly changed her position on the transgender care issue. ABC News has reached out to the Harris campaign for comment.
Harris and Trump policies on gender-affirming care
The Harris-Walz campaign has not officially released any policy proposals or promises concerning gender-affirming care so far. However, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed an executive order in May protecting and supporting access to gender-affirming health care for LGBTQ people in the state.
In his order, Walz notes that numerous medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said that access to gender-affirming care is essential to the health and wellness of gender diverse people.
Studies by researchers at Boston Children Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, and published by the American Psychological Association have shown that gender-affirming care can be life-saving for transgender and nonbinary children and adolescents, promoting positive mental and physical health and well-being.
The order came amid a wave of legislation from conservative lawmakers that has led to at least 26 states implementing policies that restrict gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
Supporters of trans care bans argue that children and their families should wait until they’re older to make decisions about their gender and health.
The Biden-Harris administration has also signaled support for transgender Americans, reversing a Trump-era ban on transgender military service and revising Title IX to include protections for gender identity.
In one statement to nonprofit news organization The 19th, the White House said that gender-affirming surgeries should be limited to adults — as is typically the case — but supports gender-affirming care for minors.
Trump has said that he plans to ban taxpayer funding for sex-change surgeries — which would include gender-affirming care for detainees — and bar schools from “promoting gender transition.”
He also stated that he would reverse the Title IX revisions concerning gender identity.
LGBTQ issues have been front and center on both national and state political arenas. More than 500 bills impacting the LGBTQ community have been considered in the U.S. this year, according to the ACLU.
LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD criticized the lack of attention on LGBTQ issues on the debate stage.
“The debate included only one mention of LGBTQ Americans, a smear against transgender people that went unchallenged,” said GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis in a statement. “As Americans begin returning ballots and line up for early voting, reporters must remember that the next President of the United States will have a profound impact on the LGBTQ community and all marginalized people. We urge reporters to ask leaders for specific ways they will ensure we are always welcome and safe.”
(WASHINGTON) — House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday announced he’s pulling a planned vote for the afternoon on a short-term government funding bill.
The measure includes the SAVE Act, which would require individuals to provide proof of U.S. citizenship to vote. Johnson said he will continue to rally support for the act to be included in the spending bill.
“The American people demand and deserve that we do everything possible to secure the elections. That’s what we’ve been saying consistently. That’s what I have heard from the people across the country in 198 cities across 39 states. It’s consistent from coast to coast, north to south,” Johnson said, maintaining his support for the bill. A number of Republican lawmakers have said they oppose the measure, including Reps. Cory Mills, Tim Burchett, Thomas Massie, Jim Banks and Matt Rosendale, among others.
Johnson said he tasked Majority Whip Tom Emmer “to do the hard work and build consensus” on the plan.
“We’re going to work through the weekend on that. And I want any member of Congress in either party to explain to the American people why we should not ensure that only U.S. citizens are voting in U.S. elections,” Johnson, R-La., said. “We’re going to work on that issue around the clock because we have an obligation to the people to do it. And that’s what the fight is. That’s what’s important.”
“It’s the most pressing issue right now and we’re going to get this job done,” he added. “No vote today because we’re in the consensus-building business here in Congress. With small majorities, that’s what you do. That’s what I’ve been doing since I became Speaker.”
Johnson can only afford to lose the support of four Republicans on a party-line vote if there are no absences. House Democrats are expected to remain unified against it for the most part. However, moderate Maine Democratic Rep. Jared Golden said he would vote in favor of the bill.
Former President Donald Trump posted Tuesday on his social media platform that if congressional Republicans “don’t get absolute assurances on Election Security,” they should vote against a continuing resolution to fund the government.
The White House, Senate Democrats and House Democrats have all slammed Johnson’s plan to tie the voter eligibility legislation to government funding.
House leaders regularly attach priority items to must-pass stopgap funding bills as a means of pushing through measures their members demand.
Johnson’s opening salvo to address the looming funding deadline likely won’t be a winning solution. But with a narrow majority and conservatives clamoring for the SAVE Act, he will attempt to lay down a legislative marker in the House — and give GOP members legislation to point to on the campaign trail.
Sources said Johnson previously told members that he wanted to hold a vote on his short-term funding plan early this week. It was on the
Pressed if he’d accept a short-term funding bill without any policy riders like the SAVE Act, Johnson has said, “Let’s see if they [White House and Senate] have the guts to tell the American people they want illegals to vote in these elections.”
Senate Democrats have already said the SAVE Act is a non-starter for them, noting that it’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote, but Johnson’s move sets up a showdown between the chambers with just months remaining until Election Day.
What is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act?
The SAVE Act, which has the backing of former President Donald Trump and the far-right House Freedom Caucus, is a bill that seeks to expand proof of citizenship requirements to vote in federal elections. It bans states from accepting and processing an application to register to vote in a federal election unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.
The House passed the SAVE Act on July 10 by a bipartisan vote of 221-198, with five election-year vulnerable Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with all Republicans. It’s unclear whether that same support would carry over into Johnson’s planed showdown vote over funding the government.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus calls the bill “extreme and dangerous” and warns it would purge millions of legal voters from state rolls and make it much more difficult for Americans to reregister to vote.
“Let’s call it what it is — this is a direct attack on hard-working families, including Latino communities,” the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said in a statement following House passage of the bill.
During a press briefing last Tuesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called on Republicans to drop the SAVE Act from their funding bill and to instead advance a clean short-term version, called a continuing resolution, or CR.
“We want to see a clean CR,” Jean-Pierre told ABC’s Karen Travers. “That’s what we want to see.”
The administration “strongly opposes” the SAVE Act, Jean-Pierre said. “It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. It’s already illegal.”
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Shalanda Young said that “Congressional Republicans are wasting time” when there is a bipartisan path for funding.
“Their 6-month CR approach ignores pressing needs that have real consequences for our defense, our veterans, and our communities,” Young said in a statement last week. “We urge Congress to quickly pass a bill to keep the government open and provide emergency funding for disaster needs across the country, as they have done on a bipartisan basis many times in the past.”
Senate Democrats almost sure to oppose
Johnson’s proposal will set off a fierce fight between the House and the Senate, as Senate Democrats will almost certainly reject the stopgap bill because of the inclusion of the SAVE Act.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray had called it a “poison pill” and a “nonstarter.”
“We’ve seen this movie before, and we know how it ends. Senate Democrats will continue to work in a bipartisan way to ensure we can keep the government funded and deliver responsible, bipartisan spending bills that can actually be signed into law before the end of the year,” Murray said.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not yet outlined a plan for dealing with government funding, but he warned House colleagues against the inclusion of any partisan matters in a must-pass funding bill.
“As we have said each time we’ve had CR, the only way to get things done is in a bipartisan way and that is what has happened every time,” Schumer said in a statement to ABC News.
In floor remarks today welcoming the Senate back from a six-week recess, Schumer on Monday called Johnson’s opening proposal “transparently unserious and seemingly designed for scoring political points instead of avoiding a shutdown.”
The March 2025 extension date proposed by Johnson also is not likely to sit well with Democrats, who may seek a much shorter stopgap that allows them to continue to debate and potentially lock in annual appropriations during the lame-duck session at the end of this year.
Schumer on Monday flatly rejected Johnson’s timeline and called for a bipartisan path forward, suggesting Democrats will hold out for a clean, shorter extension.
Another funding fight
If it feels to you like we just did this, you’re not wrong.
Government funding expires annually at the end of the federal government’s fiscal year on Sept. 30.
Passing annual appropriations for 2024 was especially calamitous. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy lost his job over it. Johnson was installed because of it, but not without also facing threats to his position. Johnson ultimately implemented a never-before-seen two deadline system to help push the ball over the line.
Congress did not complete its work codifying current spending levels until mid-March, blowing months past the annual deadline. By the time all the bills were passed, they only funded the government for about six months.
Once again, the deadline is fast-approaching at the end of the month.
As of Monday, the House had passed five of the 12 individual government funding bills, including for Defense, Homeland Security, Interior-Environment, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and State-Foreign Operations.
House GOP leaders hoped they would be able to clear all 12 bills, but the reality is that there is not enough time to do so.
Right after taking the gavel in October 2023, Johnson said in a letter obtained by ABC News to colleagues that he would not break for August recess until all 12 appropriations bills had passed the House.
“DO NOT break for district work period unless all 12 appropriations bills have passed the House,” Johnson wrote in his first letter as speaker.
That promise was not kept.
Meanwhile, to date, the Senate has not passed a single appropriations bill.
(PHILADELPHIA) — Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump presented different visions for the future of abortion rights during their presidential debate Tuesday. A back-and-forth between the candidates ended with Harris saying the government shouldn’t be deciding what women do with their bodies, but that is what Trump wants — a claim he denied.
Harris promised to sign a bill that reinstates protections for abortion rights that existed under Roe v. Wade if it reaches her desk as president while Trump would not commit to vetoing a national abortion ban if it comes to his desk.
During the debate, Trump — who claimed he wouldn’t have to veto a national ban — said he believes in exceptions for abortions in cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother.
“There’s no reason to sign a ban because we have gotten what everyone wanted,” Trump said, referring to leaving the regulation of abortion up to state governments.
Harris had falsely asserted that Trump supported a national abortion ban.
At least 22 states have abortion bans or restrictions in effect since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe — ending federal protections for abortion rights. Of those states, 14 have ceased nearly all abortion services and four have six-week bans in effect, prohibiting abortion care before most women know they are pregnant.
Three of the five U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe were appointed by Trump when he was president.
Ten states will have reproductive rights-related questions on the ballot this November, nine of which specifically address abortion.
Voters in all six states that have had abortion questions on the ballot since Roe was overturned have voted to uphold abortion rights.
During the debate, Trump also falsely claimed that some states allow for the killing of an infant after birth. Killing a baby after birth is illegal in all 50 states.
Most states that allow abortions do so until fetal viability. But, there are no gestational limits on abortion in 9 states — including Colorado, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Gov. Tim Walz’s state of Minnesota — and Washington, DC.
Advocates for abortion rights say the absence of legal consequences after fetal liability doesn’t mean doctors will try to terminate full-term, healthy pregnancies. In fact, access to third-trimester procedures is limited, costly and medically complex — typically done only when a woman’s life is threatened or the fetus isn’t expected to survive.
Many Democrats say they want to pass legislation that would codify the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe vs Wade, which protects abortion rights up until viability.
