Trump repeats claims that women will ‘no longer be thinking about abortion’ if he becomes president
(INDIANA, Penn.) — Former President Donald Trump appears to be trying out a new line in an effort to appeal to women — a group where polls show he is behind.
In a rally in battleground Pennsylvania on Monday, Trump said that he will be a “protector” of women and repeated a claim that they “will no longer be thinking about abortion” if he wins the White House — though he often brags about his role in the Supreme Court’s decision to overrule Roe vs. Wade, which secured the constitutional right to abortion. He said similar remarks on social media and a rally over the weekend.
In an effort to court women voters, Trump said at his rally in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Monday evening that he will make the country safer for women and claimed that women are “poorer, less healthy, less safe, more stressed, depressed and unhappy” than they were four years ago.
“I want to be your protector. As president, I have to be your protector,” Trump said.
He touted his abortion policy suggesting that women will no longer be thinking about it — and celebrated his appointment of three U.S. Supreme Court justices who helped overrule Roe vs. Wade.
“You will no longer be thinking about abortion,” Trump said. “Because we’ve done something that nobody else could have done. It is now where it always had to be, with the states and a vote of the people.”
Abortion remains a top issue for voters — especially women — in the upcoming election. Both Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are working to connect with voters on the topic in what’s expected to be a close contest in November.
And polling shows Trump has some ground to cover with women. Harris leads Trump by nine points (53% to 44%) among women, according to a recent ABC News/Ipsos poll.
Monday was not the first time Trump has said women will “no longer be thinking about abortion” if he becomes president again. Trump made the same claim in a social media post late Friday night, which he then repeated during a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, on Saturday afternoon.
“Women will be happy, healthy, confident and free,” Trump said at the North Carolina rally of winning the election. “You will no longer be thinking about abortion, because it is now where it always had to be with the states and with the vote of the people. The people are now voting, and many of those votes are far more liberal than we thought.”
Trump added that women’s “lives will be happy, beautiful, and their lives will be great again. So women, we love you. We’re going to take care of you.”
Trump is working to appeal to women, which come after a jury last year found him liable of sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll. Also, the former president has made demeaning comments about women in the past.
In response to Trump’s latest comments about protecting women, the Harris campaign said “Trump snapped” and that “women aren’t stupid.”
“Trump thinks he can control women — he’s wrong,” Harris campaign spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said in a statement Saturday. “He’s terrified that women across the country will vote like our lives and freedoms depend on it, because they do. Women aren’t stupid.”
Harris, who could become the first female president, focused on abortion policy during campaign events in Georgia last week. During them, she slammed Trump on his abortion stance, arguing that it’s impossible to do what’s in the best interest for women and children and also enforce abortion bans.
Polling suggests Harris is gaining momentum nationally, leading Trump 48.3% to 45.6%, according to 538’s polling average. However, a set of New York Times/Siena College polls show a tighter race with Trump leading in the battleground states of Arizona and North Carolina.
Women at Trump’s North Carolina event shared their reactions to the former president’s remarks on the topic.
Sarah Cooper from Wilmington, North Carolina, said that “abortion is an important topic, but we’re glad that he has brought it back to the state level. It really shouldn’t be a federal issue.”
Laura Hinton from Rocky Point, North Carolina, told ABC News that she has “mixed emotions” on abortion.
“I have mixed emotions on the abortion topic in general, because I had to do a medical procedure. So when that happens, I think it definitely needs to be there to protect us, allowing us to make that decision, to keep us safe,” Hinton said.
Still, she said her feelings on abortion would not prevent her from voting for Trump.
“As far as the ballot box this time, I don’t know that would stop me from voting for him, even if that were the case, because, again, he’s put it back in the state’s hands, not in the federal aspect of it.”
-ABC News’ Fritz Farrow, Gabriella Abdul-Hakim, Will McDuffie and Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court, faced with sagging public confidence and a deepening perception its decisions are politically-motivated, could soon play a critical role in how some 2024 presidential ballots are cast and counted and, potentially, how contested election results are certified.
“As prepared as anyone can be,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s junior justice, when asked recently about the flood of election-related lawsuits headed toward the high court.
Hundreds of state and federal cases involving disputes over the legitimacy of state voter rolls, access to voting places, and procedures for counting ballots are currently pending. A majority of them were brought by Republicans.
“It is a deluge,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank tracking the unprecedented volume of election-year litigation. “It is a strategy to sow disinformation and chaos in the election system.”
Many of the lawsuits, predicated on “conspiracy theories” and advancing tenuous legal arguments, will ultimately be tossed out on technical grounds, Weiser said. But some may reach the justices with the potential to alter voting procedures in the final weeks of the campaign, depending on how they rule.
In one closely-watched case from Mississippi, the Republican National Committee has asked a conservative federal appeals court panel to prohibit the counting of mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they are postmarked on or before Nov. 5. Roughly 20 states have long standing laws permitting late-arriving ballots, including Nevada, Virginia and Ohio.
“They’re saying federal law says election day means election day, which means that anything that comes afterwards was not on election day,” Weiser said of the GOP effort. “The argument has been raised in many cases across the country, and the courts have been routinely rejecting it. But given the context of the players involved, there’s now not a 0% risk that this could happen.”
In North Carolina, Republicans have sued state election officials seeking to remove 225,000 voters ahead of Election Day, claiming voter registration forms lacked the required identification information. The case is among more than three dozen GOP-led suits attempting to purge alleged ineligible voters, according to Democracy Docket, a left-leaning group tracking the litigation.
“It doesn’t strike me as implausible that you would see a case like that sharply before the Supreme Court in late October,” said University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq.
While the justices have generally sought to avoid interference in state voter registration policies and election procedures close to an election — a concept known as the Purcell Principle — they have occasionally issued rulings that have resulted in major changes.
In the past few weeks, the court has issued decisions allowing Arizona to require proof of citizenship for state voter registration and rejecting Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s bid to appear on the Nevada ballot.
“They’ve never really explained what is the ‘status quo’ and what is ‘last minute,’ and they have been incredibly inconsistent in how they applied [Purcell],” said Caroline Fredrickson, a Georgetown law professor and former president of the American Constitution Society.
Other possible scenarios for Supreme Court involvement in the 2024 election could unfold after Nov. 5, as local and state election officials tabulate ballots and certify results.
“Imagine a state such as Georgia, where you have a state election board that has in the past weeks evinced a certain tendency to invite and foment election related litigation, resisting certification of a slate of presidential electors that the state election board disfavors,” said Huq. “What happens then? Perhaps the Supreme Court would be called in to tell us.”
The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA) mandates that states must certify their results by Dec. 11, but does not spell out what would happen if they do not do so. There could be litigation to resolve the appointment of a state’s electors for president by Dec. 16 when the Electoral College meets to cast votes.
The law explicitly directs disputes over certification to a three-judge panel for resolution with the U.S. Supreme Court getting the final word.
“It’s certainly contemplated as a second layer fail-safe,” said Weiser, “but I’m relatively confident that all the earlier layer fail-safes are going to hold and that we’re not going to be in that scenario.”
The court could also be asked to weigh in on any attempt by members of Congress to disqualify former President Donald Trump from a second term, if he were to win the election, during certification of the electoral vote on Jan. 6, 2025.
In the case Trump v. Anderson last year, the justices unanimously ruled that states could not disqualify a presidential candidate as an “insurrectionist” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but it left open a federal process to make that determination.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says anyone who took an oath “as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution” and who then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort to the enemy” cannot hold office.
Trump’s critics allege he clearly violated Section 3 given his connection to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and efforts to block certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.
Under the ECRA, if one-fifth of the members of the House and Senate voted to object to certification of Trump’s electors on the grounds that he is ineligible to hold office, that decision could ultimately be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
“You could imagine a kind of Bush v Gore style, very, very rapid sequence of motions or petitions being filed and making their way through the court system,” said Huq. “I can imagine that happening, although I think it’s unlikely. But I suspect the Supreme Court would make short work of it.”
(WASHINGTON) — Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D, said Sunday that Democrats are “moving forward” after President Joe Biden ended his reelection campaign and passed the baton to Vice President Kamala Harris.
“This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl on Sunday pressed Klobuchar on comments Biden made, saying that Democrats were concerned that his presence atop the ticket this November would drag down House and Senate candidates. Klobuchar didn’t speculate on what caused Biden to step down from the 2024 presidential race but cast Harris’ candidacy as a turning of the page in the Democratic Party.
“He made the honorable decision, he took the honorable path. And for me, I am not looking in the rearview mirror about who said what, and who hurt whose feelings. For me, this is about, as Kamala Harris has said over and over again, this is about moving forward and not going backward,” Klobuchar said.
“People are interested in moving forward, and they respect President Biden. I love Joe Biden, but we are moving forward as a party and as a nation,” she said.
Klobuchar, like other Democratic lawmakers, expressed excitement about Harris’ candidacy and her selection of Tim Walz — Klobuchar’s state governor — as her running mate, swatting away attacks that the pair is too liberal to defeat former President Donald Trump.
“Kamala Harris is [a] voice of the future, but when you look at what she’s done in her life, she was a prosecutor running the biggest attorney general’s office in the United States of America. She put people behind bars. She went after murderers and rapists. So, they can try to paint her whatever way they want, but that was her North Star for many, many years,” Klobuchar said. “She is not going to let this get to her, and nor is Tim Walz, who was a fantastic choice for vice president.”
Still, Klobuchar had to play some defense for the new Democratic ticket.
Harris has not extensively talked to the media since becoming the presidential nominee, sparking criticism from Republicans — though she did say she hopes to schedule a sit-down interview with a media outlet by the end of the month.
“Twenty-one days, Jonathan, of running for president, before that she did tons of interviews. She’s done interviews with you. She’s done interviews. I’m sure she’s going to do interviews. Just last night in Nevada she talked to the press. I was reading about some of her answers. Look, she is going to talk to the press,” Klobuchar said.
Klobuchar also defended Walz, who found himself facing criticism last week over past comments suggesting he served in combat during his 24 years in the Army National Guard, even though he did not. (In a video clip tweeted out by the Harris campaign last week, Walz tells an audience that he carried guns “in war” while trying to make the case for restrictions on gun access.) Republicans also raised questions over his retirement and whether he knew his unit was going to be deployed to Iraq when he retired to run for Congress.
The Harris campaign said he misspoke about serving in a war zone, and Klobuchar and other Democrats have defended the timing of his retirement, with conflicting reports emerging over whether he was aware of the pending deployment when he made his decision in 2005.
“I think he made the decision that he was going to run for Congress, and that was his decision. He served four years longer than he would have had to serve to retire in the Guard. He stepped down simply because he made a decision to run,” Klobuchar said. “That’s why he stepped down, and it’s completely acceptable.”
(PHILADELPHIA) — Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump met for the first time Tuesday in their first presidential debate of the 2024 election, hosted by ABC News.
The high-stakes, 90-minute debate is being held at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center, with Trump and Harris arguing their case for the White House.
As the Democratic and Republican nominees debate the most pressing topics facing the nation, ABC News is live fact-checking their statements for answers that are exaggerated, need more context or are false.
Please check back for ongoing updates.
HARRIS CLAIM: 16 Nobel laureates say Trump’s plan would increase inflation and land us in a recession
FACT-CHECK: Mostly true
Harris correctly describes what the Nobel laureates said about inflation during a Trump presidency: “There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation.” But while the group describes Harris’ agenda as “vastly superior” to Trump’s, their letter doesn’t specifically predict a recession by the middle of 2025. Rather, the group wrote: “We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.”
The 16 economists are George Akerlof, Angus Deaton, Claudia Goldin, Oliver Hart, Eric S. Maskin, Daniel L. McFadden, Paul R. Milgrom, Roger B. Myerson, Edmund S. Phelps, Paul M. Romer, Alvin E. Roth, William F. Sharp, Robert J. Shiller, Christopher A. Sims, Joseph Stiglitz and Robert B. Wilson.
-PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump wants “20% tax on everyday goods” that would cost families “about $4000 more a year”
FACT-CHECK: True, but needs context
Trump has proposed a universal “10-20%” tariff on all U.S. imports, from cars and electronics to wine, food products and many other goods. He has also proposed a 60% tariff on imports from China. Vice President Harris called the plan “Trump’s sales tax,” though the former president has not explicitly proposed such a tax. Independent economists, however, say the proposed import tariffs would unquestionably result in higher prices for American consumers across the board.
The precise financial impact on families is hard to predict and estimates vary widely — from additional annual costs per household of $1,700 to nearly $4,000, depending on the study. Trump has not called for any tax hikes for American families.
He has proposed exempting Social Security benefits and tips from taxation, as well as extending individual tax cuts enacted in 2017.
-ABC News’ Devin Dwyer
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump says “We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation’s history.”
FACT-CHECK: False, but it was very high
It’s true that early in Joe Biden’s presidency the annual inflation rate peaked at roughly 9 percent (June of 2022), but that’s not the highest it’s ever been. There are several examples of the inflation rate being much higher than 9 percent in the U.S, including in the immediate aftermath of WWII and during the oil embargo and shortages of the late 70’s and early 1980s.
But, there are several examples of the inflation rate being much higher than 9 percent in the U.S., including in the immediate aftermath of WWII and during the oil embargo of the late 70’s and early 1980s when the inflation rate peaked at 14.5 percent. The inflation rate as of July 2024 is at 2.9 percent annual inflation, the lowest it has been in 3 years. It should also be noted that President Biden has falsely claimed that he inherited a high rate from his predecessor. In fact, inflation was at 1.4 percent when he took office.
*Data for this fact check was gathered from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, or St. Louis Fed
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
The unemployment rate peaked at 14.8% in April 2020 when Trump was in office – that was indeed the highest level since the Great Depression, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But unemployment rapidly declined to 6.4% in January 2021 by the time Trump left office, as the economy started to rebalance. And that 6.4% unemployment rate is still better than the 10% peak during the Great Recession in October 2009.
If you eliminate pandemic statistics, the lowest unemployment rate under Trump was just slightly higher than the lowest point under Biden. Both were good: 3.5% under Trump and 3.4% under Biden at their lowest respectively, according to data provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Bureau of Labor Statistics.
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump “killed” bill that would have secured border
FACT-CHECK: True
Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled a $20 billion plan to substantially bolster security along the U.S.-Mexico border. It would have added hundreds of border patrol and ICE agents and asylum officers; funded construction of new border wall; expanded detention facilities; ended “catch and release;” effectively closed the border entirely when illegal crossings surge; and raised the bar for asylum claims, according to the bill.
The influential Border Patrol union, which has previously endorsed Trump, publicly backed the bill. But hours after the draft legislation was unveiled on Feb. 5, Trump urged his party to oppose the bill, even as many Republicans have spent years lobbying for some of the security measures included in the deal.
“I’ll fight it all the way,” Trump told supporters at a Las Vegas rally Feb. 8. “A lot of the senators are trying to say, respectfully, they’re blaming it on me. I say, that’s okay. Please blame it on me.” Trump openly invoked election-year politics as a motivation for his position: “This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party. It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans,” Trump wrote on social media. The bill failed a key Senate procedural vote in May, with all but one Republican voting against it, including all those involved in crafting the deal.
TRUMP CLAIM: Haitian migrants eating pets in Ohio
FACT-CHECK: False
According to the city of Springfield, Ohio, these claims are false. A city spokesperson tells ABC News there have been “no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals in the immigrant community.”
Rumors that migrants from Haiti are stealing and eating animals there have run rampant after a series of claims spread widely online, amplified by social media posts from leading political figures in recent days.
“Additionally, there have been no verified instances of immigrants engaging in illegal activities such as squatting or littering in front of residents’ homes. Furthermore, no reports have been made regarding members of the immigrant community deliberately disrupting traffic,” the spokesperson added.
The House Judiciary GOP X account used 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.”
According to the Springfield News-Sun, the Springfield Police Department has not received any reports of pets being stolen and eaten. The city even created a webpage debunking some claims.
Migrants have been drawn to the region because of 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 that 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 from the federal government.
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump ‘intends on implementing’ Project 2025
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
Conservative allies and former advisors to Donald Trump published a 900-page policy blueprint in April 2023 to help a new Republican administration transition to power. The effort – dubbed Project 2025 – was organized by the Heritage Foundation, a prominent right-wing think tank. It details proposals for staffing the government and restructuring federal agencies, writing regulations, managing the economy and ensuring national security.
Harris claims Trump “intends on implementing” the “detailed and dangerous” plan if he wins a second term. But Trump denies any association with Project 2025, saying on social media in July: “I have not seen it, have no idea who is in charge of it,” and also publicly denounced its substance as “seriously extreme” and developed by the “severe right.”
“I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” Trump posted on social media. Many of the document’s priorities, however, are broadly championed by Trump, including construction of a border wall, mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and banning transgender athletes from women’s sports, among other things.
Dozens of former members of his administration were involved in the project, including former cabinet secretaries and West Wing aides. Many of the same people helped craft the Republican Party platform, ABC News has reported. Speaking at a Heritage Foundation event in April 2022, Trump said: “This is a great group and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do… when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”
HARRIS CLAIM: ‘If Donald Trump were to be reelected, he will sign a national abortion ban.’
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump has said he has “no regrets” in selecting the Supreme Court justices who overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. But he also repeatedly has promised that if elected, he will not sign a federal abortion ban into law and will leave the issue up to the states. One open question this year had been whether he would enforce the Comstock Act, an 1873 law that prohibits mailing materials used in abortions.
Among other things, the law would make it illegal to ship the drug mifepristone, which is used to terminate early pregnancies. The Biden administration has said the law is unenforceable because the drug has medical uses other than abortion, and it would be impossible to know how the drug was being used. Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, and other conservatives have called for the enforcement of the law.
In an August interview with CBS News, Trump said that while “we will be discussing specifics of it,” he will not enforce the Comstock Act.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said ‘they didn’t fire anybody having to do with Afghanistan.’
FACT-CHECK: True, but needs context.
It is accurate that no one with a direct role in the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2021 has been held publicly accountable.
Trump appears to be specifically referring to a suicide bombing that killed 13 U.S. service members. U.S. Central Command ultimately concluded that the bombing was not preventable and that members of a Marine sniper team were mistaken when they told others they had the suicide bomber in their sights.
Trump, congressional Republicans and several Gold Star families say they believe these investigations have not gone far enough.
TRUMP CLAIM: Kamala Harris wants to ban fracking
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
It’s true that Harris once called to ban fracking altogether, but she has since said she changed her policy view. During a CNN town hall on climate change in 2019 when she was still a Senator, Harris said, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Fracking is short for “hydraulic fracturing,” and it’s a technique used in the extraction of oil and natural gas from underground rock formations.
Harris also said she backed California’s efforts to stop the practice in her home state when she was the state’s attorney general. However, she eventually changed her view on fracking when she became Biden’s running mate in 2020. During an October 2020 segment on ABC’s The View, Harris said neither she nor Biden would ban fracking. Harris reiterated that she would not ban fracking during the ABC News Presidential Debate.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said ‘I’d like to give you 10,000 National Guard soldiers. They rejected me. Nancy [Pelosi] rejected me.’
FACT-CHECK: False
The final report by the bipartisan Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol determined there was “no evidence” to support the claim that Trump gave an order “to have 10,000 troops ready for January 6th.”
The report quoted President Trump’s Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who directly refuted this claim under oath, saying, “There was no direct order from the President” to put 10,000 troops to be on the ready for January 6th.
Instead, the report noted that when Trump referenced that number of troops, it was not to protect the Capitol but that he had “floated the idea of having 10,000 National Guardsmen deployed to protect him and his supporters from any supposed threats by left-wing counter-protesters.”
HARRIS CLAIM: If elected, Trump would be immune from criminal prosecution
FACT-CHECK: Partly true
Vice President Harris claimed Trump would be “immune from any misconduct” and have “no guard rails” after a landmark Supreme Court decision in June.
The court did rule the core powers, which include the ability to make treaties, veto bills, nominate cabinet members, appoint ambassadors, act as Commander-in-Chief of the military, and grant pardons.) The court also said that presidents enjoy “at least presumptive immunity” for other “official acts” – defined broadly as actions within the “outer perimeter” of official responsibilities but not “manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”
While the decision is widely construed as granting broad protection for a president, the court said presidents are “not above the law” and enjoy no “absolute” immunity, leaving room for a narrow set of cases where a current or former president could face criminal prosecution. There is also no immunity for “unofficial” acts, the court said.
Trump faces a pair of active federal criminal cases against him brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The Supreme Court decision does not mean those prosecutions cannot move forward, but it has significantly delayed proceedings and made it more difficult to convict Trump. If he were to win a second term, Trump’s Justice Department could dismiss the Special Counsel and effectively end the cases against him.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said he ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and ‘Biden put it back on day one.’
FACT-CHECK: Mostly false
The Nord Stream 2 is an undersea pipeline that would have allowed Russia to increase natural gas exports to Western Europe while bypassing Ukraine and depriving Kyiv billions of dollars in access fees. It’s true that in 2019, Trump announced sanctions that halted the pipeline’s construction. But by that point, the pipeline was nearly complete with a majority of the project occurring under Trump’s presidency, according to a 2020 analysis by the Congressional Research Service.
Biden later waived sanctions against the pipeline’s builder at the request of Germany in 2021, but reimposed penalties the following year as Russia invaded Ukraine.
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump’s deal with the Taliban is to blame for the chaotic withdrawal in Afghanistan.
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
The top government watchdog on the Afghanistan war blames Trump’s 2020 deal with the Taliban as “the single most important factor” in the rapid collapse of Afghanistan’s forces a year later. But the same office also says Biden’s decision to stick with a firm withdrawal date of U.S. troops was a factor as well.
Trump’s deal with the Taliban called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by May 2021 and release 5,000 of its fighters from Afghan prisons so long as they agreed not to attack U.S. forces. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the agreement was seen by Afghan forces as a “signal that the U.S. was handing over Afghanistan to the enemy as it rushed to exit the country.” Trump also had reduced U.S. troop levels to the lowest point in the 20-year war, and Afghan forces weren’t prepared to take over, according to the inspector general.
Biden aides say the poor security situation when he took office in January 2021 put the newly elected president in an almost impossible position. Biden could have surged U.S. troops to the country to try to bolster the weakened Afghan government. But doing so would have extended what was already the nation’s longest war and put American forces at risk of renewed attacks by the Taliban. According to the inspector general, Biden’s announcement that he would stick with a 2021 withdrawal date contributed to the poor morale among Afghan troops, paving the way for a government collapse and subsequent Taliban takeover.
TRUMP CLAIM: Harris and Walz support abortion ‘in the seventh month, the eighth month, the ninth month… And probably after birth.’
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump has claimed that Democrats in some states allow for the killing of an infant after birth. This is false.
There is no state that allows the killing of a baby after birth. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states. His false claim stems from a refusal by many Democrats to support any legal restrictions on abortion, and he specifically references comments by former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a physician, who once said that in rare, late-pregnancy cases when fetuses are nonviable, doctors deliver the baby, resuscitate it if the mother wishes, and then have a “discussion” with the mother.
While most states that allow abortion do so only up until fetal viability, there are several states – including Colorado, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Gov. Tim Walz’s home state of Minnesota — that do not impose a legal limit on abortion procedures. 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 late term 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 v. Wade, which protects abortion rights up until viability.
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said he lost the 2020 election on a ‘technicality’ because judges determined he lacked standing in election lawsuits.
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump lost the 2020 election after Biden won 306 electoral votes, compared to Trump’s 232 electoral votes.
After losing the 2020 election, Trump and his allies filed more than 60 lawsuits to challenge the outcome of the election — the overwhelming majority of which were dismissed or dropped. Many of the cases were dismissed because the plaintiffs in the cases could not prove a strong enough connection to the action they were challenging. Not having “standing” is a common and legally justifiable reason for a case to be dismissed.
TRUMP CLAIM: The Biden administration left $85 billion worth of ‘brand new beautiful military equipment behind’ in Afghanistan that was seized by the Taliban.
FACT-CHECK: False
This is not accurate, as $83 billion is an estimate of the entire amount spent by the US in security assistance in Afghanistan since 2001.
Still, the Defense Department’s Inspector General estimates $7.12 billion worth of U.S.-funded equipment was seized by the Taliban when the U.S. withdrew. According to the government watchdog, that amount includes 78 aircraft, some 9,500 air-to-ground munitions, 40,000 vehicles, 300,000 weapons and nearly all night-vision, surveillance, communications and biometric equipment provided to Afghanistan forces.
HARRIS CLAIM: ‘Trump took out a full page ad calling for their execution’
FACT-CHECK: True
Not long after the Central Park Five were arrested, Trump placed full-page ads in New York newspapers urging New York to bring back the death penalty. “These muggers and murderers” should be “forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes,” said the ad, above Trump’s signature.
-PolitiFact’s Aaron Sharockman
HARRIS CLAIM: Trump exchanged love letters with Kim Jong Un
FACT-CHECK: False
Trump did exchange letters with Kim Jong Un in August 2018 after the two leaders held a summit together in Singapore in June 2018. Trump tweeted thanking the North Korean leader “for your nice letter – I look forward to seeing you soon.” The White House at the time said Trump sent a reply to the North Korean leader, but the White House did not provide details about what was in Kim Jong Un’s letter or what was in Trump’s reply.
In August 2019, Trump said he received a “very beautiful letter” from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un when speaking to reporters.
In September 2018, Trump told a crowd at a campaign rally that there was once tough talk between the two leaders, “and then we fell in love.”
“And then we fell in love, okay? No, really – he wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters,” Trump said at the rally. Trump did often speak favorably of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during and after his presidency.
HARRIS CLAIM: Biden-Harris made historic investments in clean energy
FACT-CHECK: Needs context
The U.S. budget for clean energy investments (over $559 billion as of August 2023) is the largest in the world, according to the World Economic Forum. About a third of that investment is going toward low-carbon electricity projects, and about a quarter is aimed at developing low-carbon, efficient transportation, according to WEF. In the first quarter of 2024, the U.S. “continued its record-setting growth” with a new high of $71 billion invested in clean energy and transportation, according to Clean Investment Monitor.
At the same time, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in March that the U.S. is now producing more crude oil than any country ever has — and has been for the past six years in a row. In December 2023 the U.S. reached a new monthly record high of more than 13.3 million barrels per day, according to the EIA.
The Harris-Walz campaign told ABC News that the trillion-dollar amount cited by the vice president is based on the total spending of the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In a statement, they told us “Vice President Harris was proud to cast the tie-breaking vote on the largest ever investment to address the climate crisis and under the Biden-Harris Administration, America is more energy secure than ever before with the highest domestic energy production on record.”
Even if you take the lowest estimate for federal spending under the IRA, 780-800 billion dollars, adding the funds allocated in the CHIPS and BIL laws does exceed the $1 trillion figures that Harris has cited in her campaign speeches. All three laws include provisions that address climate change.