Harris to propose $25K in down payment support for 1st-time homeowners
(WASHINGTON) — When Vice President Kamala Harris unveils her economic policy proposals in North Carolina on Friday, it will include a proposal to provide up to $25,000 in down payment support for first-time homeowners, according to a campaign official.
The campaign is vowing that during its first term, the Harris-Walz administration would provide working families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are buying their first home up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners.
In a preview statement obtained by ABC News, the campaign says, “Many Americans work hard at their jobs, save, and pay their rent on time month after month. But they can’t save enough after paying their rent and other bills to save for a down payment — denying them a shot at owning a home and building wealth. As the Harris-Walz plan starts to expand the supply of entry-level homes, they will, during their first term, provide working families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are buying their first home up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners.”
“The Biden-Harris administration proposed providing $25,000 in downpayment assistance for 400,000 first-generation home buyers — or homebuyers whose parents don’t own a home — and a $10,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. This plan will significantly simplify and expand the reach of down-payment assistance, allowing over 1 million first time-buyers per year – including first-generation home buyers – to get the funds they need to buy a house when they are ready to buy it,” the campaign said.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump sparked criticism when he said the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award, is “much better” than the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military honor, because soldiers are in “bad shape” or dead when they receive it – comments the former president’s campaign suggested were misinterpreted.
During an event at his Bedminster, NJ estate Thursday night, which was about antisemitism, Trump called attention to a major donor, Miriam Adelson – the widow of his friend and business mogul Sheldon Adelson – upon whom he bestowed the Medal of Freedom in 2018.
“Sheldon and Miriam were best friends together, and I was in their group. And we just had always a great relationship, known her for a long time,” Trump said. “Sheldon was one of the greatest businessmen in the world, and she’s turning out to be one of the greatest businesswomen of the world.”
Trump then recalled the moment Miriam Adelson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
“But I really, I watched Sheldon sitting so proud in the White House when we gave Miriam the Presidential Medal of Freedom,” he said. “That’s the highest award you can get as a civilian. It’s the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, but civilian version, it’s actually much better, because everyone gets the Congressional Medal of Honor, they’re soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets, or they’re dead. She gets it and she’s healthy, beautiful woman.”
Miriam Adelson was awarded the Medal of Freedom as a “committed doctor, philanthropist, and humanitarian.” “As a committed member of the American Jewish community, she has supported Jewish schools, Holocaust memorial organizations, Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, and Birthright Israel, among other causes,” the Trump White House wrote in part.
The Kamala Harris campaign pounced on Trump’s words, saying he “knows nothing about service to anyone or anything but himself.”
And progressive veterans group VoteVets said in a statement: “It isn’t just that Donald Trump doesn’t respect Veterans and their sacrifice. It’s that Donald Trump hates Veterans and their sacrifice, because he looks so small in comparison to them.”
In a statement, the Trump campaign said the former president was referring to the experience of giving the award, not denigrating the Medal of Honor or the actions of servicemembers.
“President Trump was simply saying how it can be an emotionally difficult experience to give the Congressional Medal of Honor to veterans who have been wounded or tragically killed defending our country, as he proudly did when he was Commander in Chief,” said campaign spokesperson Brian Hughes.
Trump, who holds himself up as a champion of the military and regularly discusses his record of rebuilding the military while in office, has drawn fire for swipes at servicemembers.
One of the most notable examples was when he criticized another Republican, John McCain — the late Arizona senator and former presidential candidate — who spent five years as a POW during the Vietnam War, casting doubt on his status as a war hero.
“I like people who weren’t captured,” Trump said in 2015. At the time, the remarks set off a firestorm, including from members of the Republican party, who called for him to drop out of the 2016 presidential race.
More recently, Trump came under scrutiny when The Atlantic reported in 2020 that he had called those who died in war “suckers” and “losers.” Trump has vehemently denied the reported remarks, which President Biden repeated on the campaign trail before he dropped out of the race. ABC News has not independently confirmed the story.
During the Bedminster event, Trump highlighted the importance of the Jewish vote, while also making false claims about various Democrats, including Harris.
“We’re here tonight because we believe that this vicious outbreak of militant and antisemitism is very militant. Must be given no quarter, no safe harbor, no place in a civilized society. We must reject it in our schools, reject it in our foreign policy, reject it in our immigration system and reject it at the ballot box,” Trump told the crowd.
Trump then repeated a dual loyalty trope – that itself has been criticized as antisemitic – that American Jews owe a dual loyalty to Israel or having two separate interests that conflict, telling the audience, “Jewish people have to not vote by habit. You vote by habit for Democrats, and the Democrats are really against you.”
Trump continued to make similar comments, suggesting that Jewish people need to “stop” voting for Democrats. “You have to be smart,” Trump said, before discussing his list of accomplishments such as the Abraham Accords and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate passed two key pieces of legislation aimed at keeping children safe on the internet Tuesday afternoon, marking a major step in Congress’ ongoing effort to regulate massive tech companies.
The two bills, which beef up privacy protection for children and limit targeted advertisements toward them, passed with overwhelming support by senators from both sides of the aisle, 91-3.
The Kids Online Safety Act and the Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act have been years in the making as advocates — including parents who have lost their children to suicide, drug use, viral challenges and more — have argued there needs to be more guardrails for children and teens on social media.
The bill now heads to the House of Representatives where it will face further consideration.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has not yet committed to bringing it up for a vote but has signaled a willingness to consider it.
“I am looking forward to reviewing the details of the legislation that comes out of the Senate. Parents should have greater control and the necessary tools to protect their kids online. I am committed to working to find consensus in the House,” Johnson said in a statement to ABC News.
The package, if signed into law, would create a “duty of care” that mandates that companies must take reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate harms to children and teens, and gives parents and guardians more control over how their children use social media platforms. They also create privacy protections for those under 17, prohibit targeted advertising for young people and allow parents the power to erase content.
It has been more than a decade since Congress enacted meaningful legislation to protect children on the internet. Federal laws on the books were written before Instagram, Snapchat or TikTok were even invented.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the bills “perhaps the most important updates in decades to federal laws that protect kids on the internet” during floor remarks on Monday afternoon.
“Too many kids experience relentless online bullying. Too many kids have their personal data collected and then used nefariously,” Schumer said. “And sadly, sadly, too many families have lost kids because of what happened to them on social media.”
Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., have championed the legislation in the Senate and have been fighting for its passage for years. At a press conference last week, the two were flanked by parents holding photos of their children who have lost their lives due to interactions they had via social media.
One mother, Julianna Arnold, shared the story of her daughter passing after an Instagram drug dealer sold her counterfeit drugs. Another parent, Todd Minor, shared the story of his son who died while participating in a viral challenge he saw on TikTok. Both parents are advocates with ParentsSOS, an organization that advocates for safety for kids and teens online.
Blackburn was in tears addressing parents, telling them she is “happy to be a part” of changing the outcome for families like theirs.
Blumenthal, who has helmed a number of hearings about regulating tech, said the legislation is necessary in part because large tech companies have shown that their products cause harm.
“We’ve seen from their own documents, their own files, their own evidence that their business model is to get more eyeballs for longer periods of time, so they get more advertisers and more dollars knowing that those profits are derived from destroying lives, destroying lives of your children,” he said.
Leading tech companies such as Snap, X and Microsoft have all publicly endorsed the legislation.
“The safety and well-being of young people on Snapchat is a top priority. That’s why Snap has been a long-time supporter of the Kids Online Safety Act. We applaud Senators Blackburn, Blumenthal and the 68 other co-sponsors of this critical legislation for their leadership and commitment to the privacy and safety of young people,” Snap said in a statement.
Several tech lobbying groups, however, chastised the bill.
NetChoice called the Kids Online Safety Act “unconstitutional.”
“Parents need solutions that are legal and meaningful, but KOSA is neither. KOSA’s data privacy, cybersecurity, censorship, and constitutional risks remain unaddressed. NetChoice hopes to work with lawmakers in the House to protect minors and families from KOSA’s many issues,” Carl Szabo, NetChoice’s vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.
Internet lobbying group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) echoed concerns the legislation could result in tech companies implementing policies that restrict free speech.
“The Senate just passed a bill that will let the federal and state governments investigate and sue websites that they claim cause kids mental distress. It’s a terrible idea to let politicians and bureaucrats decide what people should read and view online,” Joe Mullin, EFF’s senior policy analyst, said in a statement.
Google, which owns YouTube, declined to comment to ABC News. It has said it supports “several important bipartisan bills focused on online child safety,” but not specifically KOSA.
And while Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said in a statement, “We support the development of age-appropriate standards for teens online, and appreciate KOSA’s attempt to create a consistent set of rules for the industry to follow.”
“However, we think there’s a better way to help parents oversee their teens’ online experiences: federal legislation should require app stores to get parents’ approval whenever their teens under 16 download apps,” Meta added.
TikTok declined to comment to ABC News.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who voted against the bill, also gave a speech on the floor before the vote, during which he raised concerns about the bill potentially limiting freedom of speech.
“The bill they’ve written promises to be Pandora’s box of unintended consequences,” Paul said. “It is perhaps understandable that those who sit in this body might seek a government solution to protecting children from any harms that may result in spending too much time on the internet. But before we impose a drastic first-of-its-kind legal duty on online platforms, we should ensure that the positive aspects of the internet are preserved. That means we have to ensure that the first amendment rights are protected,” Paul said.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., also said voting against the legislation, citing concerns that the bill could restrict certain kinds of speech.
“Unfortunately, KOSA’s improvements, while constructive, remain insufficient. I fear this bill could be used to sue services that offer privacy-enhancing technologies like encryption or anonymity features that are essential to young people’s ability to communicate securely and privately without being spied on by predators online. I also take seriously concerns voiced by the American Civil Liberties Union, Fight for the Future, and LGBTQ+ teens and advocates that a future MAGA administration could still use this bill to pressure companies to censor gay, trans and reproductive health information,” Wyden said in a statement.
Advocates for the legislation challenge those concerns.
“There are endless myths and misconceptions that have been spread,” Blumenthal said. “There’s no censorship in this bill, it is about product design. There is no invasion of privacy in this bill, we have chosen not to collect information from kids.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department and several state attorneys general filed an antitrust suit Friday against RealPage, alleging the real estate software company engaged in a complex collusion scheme with landlords that resulted in higher prices for renters across the country.
The lawsuit is the latest salvo in the Biden administration’s increasingly aggressive efforts to rein in powerful companies who they accuse of using their dominance in the markets to harm consumers.
The Justice Department’s suit, a result of what officials described as a years-long “painstaking” investigation, alleges the company unlawfully conspired with landlords who agreed to share with the company non-public information related to rental rates and lease terms that RealPage then entered into its algorithmic pricing software.
As a result, the lawsuit alleges, the software would generate pricing recommendations for properties based on the non-public information that in the usual course of business would not be part of normally competitive efforts between landlords to attract renters.
While the company has faced civil lawsuits before at the state level over allegations of collusion, officials said the suit appears to be the first federal one of its kind involving such an advanced algorithmic collusion scheme.
“Americans should not have to pay more in rent because a company has found a new way to scheme with landlords to break the law,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “We allege that RealPage’s pricing algorithm enables landlords to share confidential, competitively sensitive information and align their rents.”
The civil complaint against the company quotes extensively from internal documents and testimony from RealPage executives, including one instance where the company allegedly acknowledged how its software benefited landlords’ efforts to maximize prices — describing its software as “a rising tide raises all ships.”
While it’s not immediately clear what the department will ultimately demand of the company if a judge finds its actions violated antitrust laws, the Justice Department said in a release it will seek an order that RealPage cease in its alleged collusion with landlords “and restore competition for the benefit of renters in states across the country.”
RealPage did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit from ABC News.