Gaetz wins House primary after McCarthy-allied group spends millions boosting challenger
Alex Wong/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Matt Gaetz defeated his Republican primary opponent on Tuesday in one of Florida’s most conservative congressional districts, according to an Associated Press projection, handing former Speaker Kevin McCarthy a final blow to his so-called “revenge tour” against a handful of Republicans who helped oust him last year.
“Thank you FL-01. I will never stop fighting for you,” Gaetz posted on X shortly after the race was called.
Despite being outspent in the race — with a McCarthy-aligned group pouring $3 million into attack ads — Gaetz is projected to handily defeat former Navy pilot Aaron Dimmock, who he’d dismissed as a carpetbagger and criticized his previous work in diversity training.
Although Gaetz was the heavy favorite heading into Tuesday, he ramped up campaigning in recent weeks, holding a string of events across Florida’s 1st district, which featured several Republicans who had supported his effort to remove McCarthy from the speakership last year, including Arizona Rep. Eli Crane and Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett.
Gaetz’s win marks yet another defeat for McCarthy, who has looked to target the group of eight far-right members of Congress, led by Gaetz, who were instrumental in his removal as House Speaker, which led to weeks of chaos on Capitol Hill as Republican members scrambled to elect a new leader.
With Tuesday’s primary in the books, McCarthy’s efforts against his far-right rivals only resulted in one big win against the so-called “Gaetz eight,” helping defeat House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good in one of the most closely watched and expensive Republican primaries of the 2024 election cycle. Meanwhile, he failed to unseat any others, including South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace, who won her primary decisively.
Gaetz’s for governor?
Tuesday’s primary victory will likely also fuel further speculation around Gaetz’s plans to run for governor of Florida in 2026, as Gov. Ron DeSantis will be term-limited from seeking re-election. Although the Florida congressman has consistently denied rumors that he is eyeing statewide office, some sources close to him suggest otherwise.
If Gaetz does decide to run, McCarthy’s revenge tour could continue. Allies of the former Speaker have already briefed donors on plans to continue targeting Gaetz if he pursues the governorship, sources tell ABC News. Ahead of Tuesday’s primary, a McCarthy-aligned group circulated a memo that suggested its efforts had damaged Gaetz’s chances of running for governor, pointing to polling data it had commissioned that showed Gaetz trailing in a prospective primary.
But those close to Gaetz told ABC News that the Florida congressman is likely to run for governor in 2026, and McCarthy’s efforts won’t deter him—in fact, they might even motivate him further.
“McCarthy did not do a single f—ing thing to dissuade Matt from running for governor,” a source close to Gaetz told ABC News. “If that was the effort, it’s been a piss-poor one.”
Still, Gaetz has publicly stated that he has no plans to run—at least not yet.
“I have no plans to run for governor. I like my job and I want to help President Trump in Washington,” Gaetz posted on X on Monday. “If those plans change, I hope I have opposition as incompetent as these dorks.”
(WASHINGTON) — A highly-anticipated economic agenda to be unveiled by Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday will include a federal ban on price gouging for food and groceries, the Harris campaign announced.
The proposal will be presented to voters alongside other plans to address elevated inflation, such as bolstered antitrust enforcement in the grocery sector and greater latitude to investigate corporate practices, the campaign said in a press release.
A ban on price gouging would in theory disallow food and grocery companies from hiking prices an excessive amount over a set period of time, economists told ABC News. They disagreed, however, on whether the measure could control the rise of food prices or if such an outcome is desirable.
Inflation remains a top issue for voters and a potential vulnerability for Harris, since rapid price increases emerged during the Biden administration. While inflation has fallen dramatically from its peak, consumers still face prices roughly 20% higher than where they stood before Biden took office.
In response to ABC News’ request for comment, the Harris campaign provided a statement outlining its economic proposals.
“Vice President Harris knows that rising food prices remain a top concern for American families. Many big grocery chains that have seen production costs level off have nevertheless kept prices high and have seen their highest profits in two decades. While some food companies have passed along these savings, others still have not,” the statement said.
Here’s what to know about how this federal ban on price gouging would operate and whether it would be effective:
How would a federal price-gouging ban work?
The Harris campaign said the measure would set “clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”
Details on the policy remain limited, however. Economists told ABC News that the Harris proposal may end up resembling similar bans currently on the books in 37 states. Those bans prohibit companies from exploiting a sudden imbalance between supply and demand by significantly hiking prices.
“The typical example is a natural disaster. If a water company comes and sells water at double, triple or five times the price of what people can get it at five miles away, just to be able to take advantage of the situation – that’s price gouging,” Niko Lusiani, director of the corporate power program at progressive advocacy group Roosevelt Forward, told ABC News.
State bans define “price gouging” in various ways. Some measures establish a subjective set of criteria, such as a sudden and significant spike in prices; while others detail a specific numerical amount of price growth necessary to violate the law, Luis Cabral, a professor of economics at New York University who studies price gouging, told ABC News.
“It’s not easy to measure,” Cabral said, noting that qualitative definitions risk being overly vague while quantitative ones struggle to set the boundaries around what constitutes price gouging.
Many of the state-level bans on this practice set a condition that an emergency is necessary to trigger application of the law. The Harris proposal would likely omit such a stipulation, Lusiani said, since we are years removed from the outbreak of COVID-19.
“It’ll clearly be different because now we’re on the other side of the pandemic,” Lusiani added, but he noted that current price hikes could be viewed as a result of that disruption.
The Harris campaign said it would enforce a ban by slapping offenders with financial penalties.
Most state price-gouging bans punish violators with civil penalties enforced by the state attorney general, while other measures impose criminal penalties, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a group that tracks state laws.
“Enforcement will be critical,” Lusiani said. “A ban by itself won’t stand on its own legs.”
Would this type of ban help control inflation?
Economists disagreed sharply about whether a federal price-gouging ban would help control price increases and, if so, to what extent that outcome would benefit the economy.
The stark divide owed in part to a difference of opinion about the role of corporate profiteering in the pandemic-era bout of inflation, as well as a clash over the effectiveness of government intervention in addressing it.
Experts who faulted corporate price gouging for a portion of the price increases said it arose from market concentration that allowed a handful of dominant companies in a given industry, including the food and grocery sector, to raise prices without fear of competitors undercutting them with lower-priced alternatives.
Grocery retailer profit margins surged in 2021 and rose even higher two years later, even after price increases had begun to cool, a Federal Trade Commission study in March showed.
A price-gouging ban would help police corporations that otherwise would be tempted to leverage their market power by excessively raising prices, the experts said.
“Large, incumbent corporations that control a large share of a sector, including grocery companies, have way too much power to control prices,” Lusiani said. “That’s an underlying cause of the inflation.”
Some economists who spoke to ABC News attributed the acceleration of price increases over recent years to a textbook example of imbalance between supply and demand. The pandemic snarled global supply chains and triggered lockdowns, causing shortages of goods and workers. Meanwhile, government stimulus boosted demand, sending too many dollars after too few products.
“It’s economics 101 that if you stimulate demand while simultaneously deterring supply, your equilibrium will be significantly higher prices,” Michael Faulkender, a professor of finance at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business, told ABC News.
In turn, Faulkender dismissed any potential benefit from a federal price-gouging ban. “It just sounds to me that we’re creating even more burdensome regulations that will actually raise prices for consumers,” Faulkender said.
Joe Brusuelas, chief economist for the accounting firm RSM US, said he opposes an outright ban but supports moderate measures that could deter price hikes, such as expanded government oversight of corporate practices.
Bruseulas pointed to data released this week showing food prices had risen 2.2% in July compared to a year ago. That level of inflation essentially stands at normal levels, Brusuelas said, suggesting that price increases had been reined in without a federal price-gouging ban in place.
“I’m concerned when I hear the federal government use the word ‘ban,’ but I’m not concerned about an exercise in oversight,” Brusuelas said.
(NEW YORK) — In one of the most notable exchanges of the vice presidential debate, Republican candidate JD Vance refused to say former President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and downplayed the events of Jan. 6, 2021, when a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol to try to stop the ceremonial certification of the results.
The Ohio senator also declined to rule out challenging the outcome of the 2024 race, even if votes were certified by every state leader as legitimate.
Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, expressed exasperation and disbelief. He said such denialism had to stop because it was “tearing our country apart.”
The topic of democracy, a top issue for many voters this cycle, came up near the end of the 90-minute debate hosted by CBS News in New York City.
Moderator Norah O’Donnell, noting there were no findings of widespread fraud in 2020, asked Vance about his past comment that he would not have certified the election if he had been vice president and instead would have asked states to submit alternate slate of electors.
“That has been called unconstitutional and illegal,” O’Donnell said. “Would you, again, seek to challenge this year’s election results, even if every governor certifies the results?”
Vance first sidestepped the question by saying he was “focused on the future” and criticized Harris, who he later claimed was the real “threat to democracy” as he accused her of censorship.
When he did address the question, he said: “Look, what President Trump has said is that there were problems in 2020, and my own belief is that we should fight about those issues, debate those issues peacefully in the public square.”
“And that’s all I’ve said, and that’s all that Donald Trump has said,” Vance continued, even though Trump is criminally accused of trying to overturn the election. “Remember, he said that on Jan. 6, the protesters ought to protest peacefully, and on Jan. 20 what happened? Joe Biden became the president, Donald Trump left the White House and now, of course, unfortunately, we have all of the negative policies that have come from the Harris-Biden administration.”
Walz called those comments “troubling” and said he was concerned about Trump’s recent threats to jail political opponents and his efforts to cast doubt on this year’s outcome.
“Here we are, four years later, in the same boat,” Walz said. “I will tell you, that when this is over, we need to shake hands, this election, and the winner needs to be the winner. This has got to stop. It’s tearing our country apart.”
The two, in a departure from the civil tone of the night, got into a tense back-and-forth on the issue.
Vance tried to cast election denialism as an issue for both parties, trying to equate Trump’s actions to Hillary Clinton’s complaints about the 2016 election (but only after she conceded).
“Hillary Clinton, in 2016, said that Donald Trump had the election stolen by Vladimir Putin because the Russians bought, like, $500,000 worth of Facebook ads,” Vance said.
“January 6 was not Facebook ads,” Walz said, hammering him for casting Jan. 6 as “peaceful” given the violence and deaths.
That day, which began with a speech by Trump at the Ellipse in which he told attendees to march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol, culminated in approximately 140 law enforcement officers being injured, more than a thousand people being charged and cost millions of dollars damage.
In the months leading up to Jan. 6, Trump spread falsehoods about the 2020 election being “rigged” and “stolen” by Democrats. At the Ellipse, he continued the incendiary language and proclaimed, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Toward the end of Tuesday’s debate, Walz turned toward Vance and pressed him directly: “Did he lose the 2020 election?”
“Tim, I’m focused on the future,” Vance responded.
“That is a damning non-answer,” Walz shot back.
He also invoked former Vice President Mike Pence, saying the reason he wasn’t on the debate stage was because of his decision to carry out the certification of the 2020 results against Trump’s wishes.
“America, I think you’ve got a really clear choice,” Walz said, “of who’s going to honor that democracy and who’s going to honor Donald Trump.”
Trump also refused to accept that he lost the 2020 election during the ABC News presidential debate on Sept. 10.
When confronted with own recent remarks that he “lost by a whisker,” Trump doubled down. “I said that?” he responded.
“Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?” ABC News moderator David Muir asked.
“No, I don’t acknowledge that at all,” he said. “That was said sarcastically.”
Trump has pleaded not guilty and denies any wrongdoing as he faces federal and state charges for his efforts to overturn his election.
Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump, at Arlington National Cemetery on August 26, 2024 in Arlington, Virginia. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A photography-related “incident” occurred at Arlington National Cemetery Monday during a visit by former President Donald Trump, leading to a report being filed, the cemetery said in a statement to ABC News.
While the cemetery did not immediately provide specifics, NPR reported that a source had told the publication that two Trump campaign officials engaged in a verbal and physical altercation with a cemetery staff member during Trump’s visit, which came on the third anniversary of the deaths of 13 service members during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The alleged altercation took place after the Trump campaign officials were asked not to take photos and videos in Section 60, a section of the cemetery where recent U.S. veterans are buried, NPR reported.
When contacted by ABC News on Tuesday night, a representative for the Arlington National Cemetery released a statement that confirmed an “incident” but didn’t provide specifics.
“Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries, to include photographers, content creators or any other persons attending for purposes, or in direct support of a partisan political candidate’s campaign. Arlington National Cemetery reinforced and widely shared this law and its prohibitions with all participants. We can confirm there was an incident, and a report was filed,” the statement read.
On Tuesday, Trump’s campaign posted a video capturing moments from the former president’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery, including more images of his visit to Section 60 where the alleged altercation occurred, and appears to be an example of how the campaign violated the cemetery’s rules.
The TikTok video, which is overlayed by guitar instrumentals, shows a montage of Trump participating in the wreath-laying ceremony, taking photos with Gold Star families and visiting Section 60.
In the video, Trump can be heard making a political point throughout the video — blaming the Biden-Harris administration for the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. The video is also captioned “Should have never happened,” again condemning his political opponent’s previous actions.
In the TikTok video, Trump and some of the family members are seen smiling and holding thumbs up as they posed for photos, with overlaid captions claiming Trump didn’t lose a single soldier in 18 months, but that a “disaster” ensued after the Biden-Harris administration took over.
Trump campaign’s communications director, Steven Cheung, posted on X what he said was proof of the team’s approval to have an official photographer and videographer outside the main press pool.
“Only former President Trump may have an official photographer and/or videographer outside of the main media pool,” a screengrab of what appears to be an access guideline posted by Cheung reads. However, it should be noted that campaign officials — not professionals — were also taking photos and videos of the day’s events.
Cheung also claimed on Tuesday night after the news broke that, “There was no physical altercation as described, and we are prepared to release footage if such defamatory claims are made” in a statement to ABC News.
Trump campaign staffers posted multiple pictures and videos of Trump visiting Arlington Cemetery, including from what appears to be Section 60, using the moment to criticize Vice President Kamala Harris’ absence. Trump was at the cemetery on the third anniversary of the attack at Abbey Gate during the withdrawal from Afghanistan to pay tribute to the 13 U.S. Service members killed in the incident.
In one video posted by Trump campaign’s senior adviser Chris LaCivita, Trump can be seen laying flowers on the grave of Staff Sgt. Ryan Knauss, who died in the attack. LaCivita wrote in the post that Trump was speaking on the phone with Knauss’ family, who couldn’t make it to the ceremony on Monday.
Multiple other Trump campaign staffers posted photos from there, and some of the images were then shared by the Trump campaign on their official X account.
Prior to the event, the cemetery had been explicit in its rule that no Trump activity could be filmed during his visit to Section 60.
Monday’s press pool note read: “The family visit to Section 60 following the wreath laying is private and at their explicit request, there will be NO coverage at that location. Your POOL will wait inside the press van during this visit. POOL will then be taken to an unknown location for an OTR stop to round out the morning.”
On Tuesday, following NPR’s report, Cheung said in a statement that “there was no physical altercation as described.” He also claimed someone “decided to physically block members of President Trump’s team.”
In a statement to ABC News, LaCivita, a combat-wounded Marine, stressed that Trump “was there on the invitation of the Abbey Gate Gold Star Families to honor their loved ones who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country,” calling the individual who attempted to block Trump campaign officials “despicable.”
