Lil Nas X‘s latest song “HERE WE GO!” is the theme song for Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F, so feel free to call him Detective Montero.
The rapper dropped the energetic and catchy tune — which notably features a sample of Harold Faltermeyer‘s iconic original “Axel F” theme song from 1984’s Beverly Hills Cop — on Friday.
In a recent interview, Lil Nas X said the first time he heard the original theme song was on Family Guy, and he thought, “Wait, that’s actually a nice little melody,” before he saw the film years later.
“It was actually kind of insane,” the “Old Town Road” singer said about getting to leave his mark on the beloved film franchise starring Eddie Murphy. “I was a bit, like, emotional.”
“And I know, like, my dad and family, this probably would be the thing they’d go the most, like, insane about me doing, because it’s so close to them,” he added.
According to a press release, Lil Nas X’s song is featured multiple times throughout Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F and plays over the end credits as the movie’s theme song.
Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F streams July 3 on Netflix.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday limited the scope of a federal obstruction statute used by prosecutors to charge more than 300 defendants involved with the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, including former President Donald Trump.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, said the government must show in those cases that the alleged obstruction related to “impairing the availability or integrity” of “records, documents, or objects” used in the disrupted proceeding.
The Justice Department had applied the charge more broadly in many cases, alleging that the physical presence of some of the rioters inside Capitol was alone “obstruction of an official proceeding” under the law.
Roberts said the statute in question — the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 which was enacted after the Enron scandal to prevent destruction of evidence in financial crimes — must be read in context.
“It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress actually hid away … a catchall provision that reaches far beyond the document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the first place,” Roberts wrote.
The decision was at least a partial victory for former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer who was among the rioters on Jan. 6 and challenged the obstruction charge, which can carry up to 20 years in prison.
The Supreme Court made clear, however, that prosecutors could retain the obstruction charges if more properly framed and supported by evidence that the defendants’ actions involved documents of some kind.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said “Congress meant what it said.”
The law “is a very broad provision,” she wrote, “and admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?) But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the test anyway.”
Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed disappointment with the ruling but said it would not impact the vast majority of the Justice Department’s 1,400 criminal cases related to Jan. 6.
“There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer,” Garland said in a statement. “For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling.”
It was also not clear how much of an impact the court’s decision would have on special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case against Trump. Two of the four charges involve the same obstruction statute used against Fischer.
“It will be a much tougher case to argue that he impaired an official proceeding if the prosecution must also show that it related to the destruction or alteration, or related activities, of documents,” said Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller, an election law scholar.
“For rioters physically present at the Capitol that day, it will be a tougher but possible showing. For Trump, however, it may be more about whether paperwork submitted to Pence relating to other electoral votes or what to do with those votes rises to the level of criminal activity in the statute,” Muller said. “We’ll see whether the Department of Justice keeps this charge against Trump, but it may fall back to some of the other charges and rely more heavily on them instead.”
Also hanging over the Trump case is whether the high court will allow it to proceed at all. On Monday, the justices are expected to hand down a decision in Trump v. U.S. that could determine how much, if any, immunity from prosecution the former president enjoys.
Megan Thee Stallion delves into MEGAN the person on her brand-new album, released under Hot Girl Productions. The project boasts 18 tracks, including previously-released songs “Cobra,” “BOA” and “Hiss,” and featuresVictoria Monét, Big K.R.I.T., Kyle Richh and partner of her Hot Girl Summer Tour, GloRilla.
Meg also teamed with UGK on a song titled “Paper Together,” featuring a posthumous verse from one of her favorite rappers: Pimp C. Additionally, Yuki Chiba, who Meg worked with in Tokyo earlier this year, appears on the album in a track titled “Mamushi.”
MEGAN, now available on digital services, comes after the extension of her Hot Girl Summer Tour, which sees Meg’s return to Atlanta and Charlotte, as well as an appearance at Lollapalooza. She also announced a few dates in Europe and the U.K. in July.
According to Taraji P. Henson, who saw Meg perform in LA, the concert is “amazing.” “That was my first time seeing her perform live on her stage, headlining. She’s amazing,” Henson told People. “She has been able to withstand all of the adversity and rise above it. She’s incredible. I love you, Megan, and I’m so proud of you. That’s my baby girl, by the way.”
“I’m like auntie, you know? I’m a girl’s girl. Anything women are doing, I’m there,” she continued. “I’m the cheerleader. I’m the loudest one in the front cheering them on, and that’s what you should be as an elder.”
She added, “Be here for these babies! You know, it’s hard enough out here for women, and what I’m not gonna be is another obstacle for another woman. So, I’m a champion. I’m a team player. I’m a girl’s girl. Go Meg. Go Meg. I got you. I love you.”
(NEW YORK) — Severe storms ravaged the country from Montana to Florida on Thursday, with winds gusting to 91 mph in South Dakota and hail as large as golf balls in Montana.
In Melbourne, Florida, a tornado ripped through a neighborhood, damaging homes.
“Fortunately no one was injured,” Melbourne Mayor Paul Alfrey wrote Thursday night. “Although some of the area is without power [Florida Power & Light] is en route and will be working through the evening replacing power poles and downed lines.”
On Friday, the severe weather is forecast to impact Colorado to Iowa, bringing damaging winds and large hail.
The highest tornado threat will be in the Kansas City area.
The severe weather will move east on Saturday, ripping through Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo, New York. Damaging winds, hail and isolated tornadoes are possible.
By Sunday, the severe weather will hit the Interstate 95 corridor, including Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City and Boston. Damaging winds will be the biggest threat.
(WASHINGTON) — A small group of New Jersey herring fishermen landed a huge catch at the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday, writing for a 6-3 majority, significantly reeled in the power of federal regulators, tossing out a 40-year precedent on agency authority and a Commerce Department rule that the fishermen said could drive them out of business.
The opinion — officially overturning a 1984 decision known as “Chevron” — creates a big splash, making it much easier for businesses and other interests to challenge rules touching every aspect of American life from food inspections, workplace safety, tax collection, environmental regulation and more.
The case involved a regulation by the National Marine Fisheries Service ordering some commercial herring fishermen to pay the salaries of government observers federal law requires they carry aboard their vessels.
The law — the Magnuson-Stevens Act — does not spell out how the observers, who collect scientific data on the nation’s fisheries, should be funded. The agency had argued the law’s ambiguity supported its interpretation that the boat operators must pay in some instances.
Lower courts upheld the regulation citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, which held, in part, that courts should defer to the scientific and health experts at agencies when a law isn’t clear, so long as their regulations are reasonable.
Roberts said that holding was an error and that judges, not bureaucrats, should interpret what an ambiguous law does or does not allow.
“Chevron is overruled,” he wrote. “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the [Administrative Procedures Act] requires.”
“Careful attention to the judgement of the Executive Branch [agency] may inform that inquiring. And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it,” Roberts continued. “But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”
The ruling deals the biggest blow to the administrative state in a generation and hands a long-sought victory to conservative legal groups and business lobbyists who have spent years pushing for the court to strike down what is known as “Chevron deference” and rein in agency power.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision would cause a “massive shock to the legal system,” since more than 17,000 disputes over federal regulations over the past 40 years have relied on the Chevron doctrine — most decided in the government’s favor.
The discarding of precedent, Kagan wrote, would supplant the expertise of subject-matter specialists at all levels of government.
“It gives courts the power to make all manner of scientific and technical judgments. It gives courts the power to make all manner of policy calls, including about how to weigh competing goods and values. It puts courts at the apex of the administrative process as to every conceivable subject,” she wrote.
Public interest groups said tens of thousands of government rules could be called into question, touching everything from the environment to workplace safety to technology and health care.
“How far-reaching the decision is remains to be seen,” said Gordon Todd, a Supreme Court litigator with Sidley and federal regulatory law expert. “The Court sought to minimize the retroactive impact of its decision by noting that prior decisions that relied on Chevron deference are themselves entitled to ‘statutory stare decisis,’ but it remains to be seen the extent to which such decisions remain valid.”
“In the short-run we expect a significant increase in regulatory litigation, including challenges to existing regulations, ongoing rulemakings, and existing precedents,” Todd said.
Jerry Masoudi, former chief counsel of the Food and Drug Administration, said the ruling was a dramatic shift in the balance of power between agencies and courts.
“These decisions will not affect FDA’s case-by-case decisions on scientific issues, like product approvals,” Masoudi said in a statement, “but rules underlying these processes may be open to broader challenge.”
Environmental groups were particularly alarmed by the Supreme Court’s decision, warning that scientific experts could now be overridden by judges with little familiarity with the subjects they are addressing.
“The American people really rely on our public institutions to put protections in place for clean air and water, for, our health and our children’s health, for safe and secure homes and businesses. And what this really means is that our ability to rely on expertise and science to make those decisions and put those protections in place is really in jeopardy now,” said Meredith Moore, the director of the Fish Conservation Program at the Ocean Conservancy, in an interview with ABC News.
“What we’re going to see is lots and lots of lawsuits, taking on everything that the government does from health and safety to the environment to tech issues like AI and our cybersecurity,” Moore added.
As for the herring fishermen, one practical impact of the ruling means they will be spared a potential fee of up to $700 a day.
“Today’s restoration of the separation of powers is a victory for small, family-run businesses like ours, whether they’re involved in fishing, farming, or retail,” said Bill Bright, a third generation herring fisherman in Cape May, New Jersey, and plaintiff in the case.
“Congress never authorized industry-funded monitoring in the herring fishery. And agency efforts to impose such funding hurts our ability to make an honest living. Nothing is more important than protecting the livelihoods of our families and crews.”
Guests at the Old Town Pour House watch a debate between President Joe Biden and presumptive Republican nominee former President Donald Trump on June 27, 2024 in Chicago, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — After President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump faced off during the first presidential debate of the 2024 election cycle, swing state voters were quick to weigh in on the candidates’ performances.
Dan Olszewski — a self-proclaimed socially liberal and fiscally conservative Republican entrepreneur from Wisconsin — said he was the kind of voter who helped secure a victory for Biden in his home state during the 2020 election.
Olszewski said he supported Nikki Haley in the GOP primary this election cycle and won’t support Trump after Jan. 6, however, he reached out to ABC News Thursday night to vent over Biden’s debate performance.
“This is an unmitigated disaster for Biden. Shockingly bad,” he wrote.
Olszewski said the debate didn’t change how he plans to vote, but he doesn’t think Biden has done himself any favors.
“Doesn’t change my perspective since inept is better than evil but not sure how it can help any undecided go toward Biden,” he told ABC News.
In the swing state of North Carolina, voters were sharply divided on the candidates’ debate performances.
At a watch party organized by the Biden campaign, some voters were adamant that Biden had a strong debate performance, while others expressed reservations to ABC News.
“It’s obvious he’s old. He’s over 80 and that’s obvious throughout the debate. However, he’s had several amazing moments,” said Garrett Warner.
When asked by ABC News which moments particularly stuck out to Warner, he said, “I can’t remember any in specific, but there were several moments where Donald Trump said an outrageous thing.”
At a GOP watch party in North Carolina, River Collins told ABC News that Trump won the debate: “You see how articulate he is. He’s very disciplined. President Biden is all over the place. He’s losing his words. He’s saying the wrong words. He’s confused.”
Shannon Flemming, a Biden supporter, told ABC News, “I can tell he’s being very careful with how he speaks and some people might interpret that as being feeble, but we have to remember he has a speech impediment, and therefore, take that into consideration.”
Speaking with ABC News’ White House correspondent MaryAlice Parks, a former Nikki Haley caucus leader in Iowa, who said she once laughed out loud at the idea of voting for Trump, thought Biden’s performance was a “disaster,” quipping, “I mean wow.”
Thaila Flores from New Hampshire walked away from watching the debate disappointed and confused, telling ABC News, “The RNC and DNC are to blame for this.”
“All they are doing is arguing over who was the worst president. Biden can’t process his thoughts and Trump has not answered a question,” Flores said.
With less than a five-month countdown to Election Day, and recent projections from 538 placing the candidates at a near-tie among polled voters, the presidential debates are poised to be make-or-break events for Biden or Trump.
The CNN debate marked the first of two debates in the general election season. The second will be hosted by ABC News on Sept. 10.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a local ordinance to bar anyone without a permanent residency from sleeping outside does not amount to “cruel and unusual” punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
The 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch reversed an appeals court ruling that found an outdoor camping ban in Grants Pass, Oregon to be unconstitutional.
“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it,” Gorsuch wrote. “At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not.”
The case was the biggest test for the high court on the complicated and multifaceted issue of homeless rights in more than 40 years.
The decision is expected to have ripple effects nationwide in communities that have been grappling with a surge in homeless encampments amidst an unprecedented uptick in the number of unhoused residents. An estimated 600,000 people are homeless on a given night, according to the nation’s point-in-time survey.
“The Court has now restored the ability of cities on the frontlines of this crisis to develop lasting solutions that meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of their communities, while also keeping our public spaces safe and clean,” said Grants Pass attorney Theane Evangelis.
Gorsuch’s opinion concluded that ordinances like the one challenged in Grants Pass are not inherently cruel or unusual, and do not punish people based on their status but rather their conduct.
The city has wanted to assess a $295 fine for people sleeping outside. Individuals who receive multiple violations may be ordered from public property and arrested and jailed if they don’t comply.
“Different governments may use these laws in different ways and to varying degrees,” Gorsuch wrote, “but many broadly agree that policymakers need access to the full panoply of tools in the policy toolbox to tackle the complicated issues of housing and homelessness.”
Notably, the court made clear that homeless people are not without potential defenses against criminal charges for sleeping outsides when they have nowhere else to go, as Gorsuch said: “Nothing in today’s decision prevents states, cities, and counties from going a step further and declining to criminalize public camping altogether.”
A recent Oregon state law forbids the punishment of sleeping in public when a person has no available shelter. It is not immediately clear whether the Grants Pass ordinance can still be enforced.
“While this decision is disappointing, it is important to remember that the solution to America’s homeless crisis does not rest with the courts. That job falls to all of us,” said Ed Johnson, the director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center and lead counsel for the homeless people challenging the law. “The solution to our homelessness crisis is more affordable housing.”
Johnson said the Supreme Court also left open the possibility of other constitutional challenges to homeless camping bans under the Constitution’s excessive fines clause and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued the ordinance punishes homeless people with nowhere else to go based on status.
“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Sotomayor wrote. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option. The city of Grants Pass jails and fines those people for sleeping anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars, if they use as little as a blanket to keep warm or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow. For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless. That is unconscionable and unconstitutional.”
“The Constitution provides a baseline of rights for all Americans rich and poor, housed and unhoused,” Sotomayor added.
The decision was hailed by a bipartisan group of civic leaders and municipalities, especially across the West, which has seen a proliferation of encampments in recent years.
President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump participate in the CNN Presidential Debate, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The nation watched as President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump squared up Thursday evening in the first presidential debate of the 2024 general election.
While this debate wasn’t the first time the two candidates contended over issues ranging from immigration and the economy to abortion access — this presidential debate saw the two candidates forced to follow the rules.
Ahead of the debate, held in a studio at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters, both campaigns agreed to a set of guidelines established by CNN, which included muted microphones, no live studio audience and restricting the candidates from consulting with their teams during commercial breaks.
Biden and Trump were given two minutes to answer each question and one minute for rebuttal.
While the microphone muting kept the cross-fire between the candidates orderly, the debate’s strict time guidelines seemingly made for less pushback from the event’s moderators, CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.
The debate saw Biden and Trump continuously calling each other a “liar,” but with little-to-no live fact-checking by the moderators.
“This debate is a master-class in what’s wrong with our media-saturated, horse-race obsessed politics,” Robert. E Kelly, a professor of political science, wrote on X Thursday.
“Trump is just lying and making stuff up but he says it ‘vigorously’ and doesn’t get fact-checked. Therefore he’s winning,” Kelly wrote, adding, “We’ll spend the next month debating Biden’s age rather than Trump’s staggering incompetence.”
Another viewer suggested the debate format should feature a “buzzer” that would go off every time the candidates said a false statement.
“We need a buzzer to go off every time a false statement is made by a candidate,” Amee Vanderpool, a political writer, wrote on X.
“Until then any debate in this format, with moderators who refuse to fact check statements in real time, is a waste of time,” Vanderpool said.
Other users took to social media to applaud the format, saying the microphones being cut brought order to the debate stage that wasn’t seen during the 2020 election cycle.
“I want to give CNN credit. The debate format is fantastic,” Leo Terrell, a civil rights attorney, wrote on X.
“I’ve never seen fewer complaints about the debate format or moderators before,” Noam Blum said on X, adding, “Taking away the audience and preventing people from talking over each other just works.”
The first 2020 debate between Biden and Trump spiraled into near-constant interruptions and candidates speaking at the same time. At one point, Biden turned to Trump and told him, “Will you shut up, man?”
Ahead of Thursday’s debate, experts told ABC News the rules could make for a more substantive, issue-focused debate.
“Despite the fact that these rules are pretty strict, we’re going to see some fireworks,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston, told ABC News last week.
The CNN debate marked the first of two debates in the general election season. The second will be hosted by ABC News on Sept. 10.
With less than a five-month countdown to Election Day, and recent projections from 538 placing the candidates at a near-tie among polled voters, the presidential debates are poised to be make-or-break events for Biden or Trump.
The Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center is the first LGBTQ center in the National Park Service. — Courtesy of Stephen Kent Johnson
(NEW YORK) — Mark Segal was 18 years old and had only lived in New York City for six weeks when he found himself at the center of the Stonewall Uprising in 1969.
The very spot where Segal once danced, drank and took part in one of the most consequential moments in LGBTQ history is now the first LGBTQ visitor center within the National Park System.
“Before Stonewall, there were no more than 100 out activists in the entire United States of America on that first Pride,” said Segal, now 73. “Today, if you look around the world, there are millions of people who celebrate Pride. And it all started in that building.”
The Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center, which opened to the public Friday, is what Segal would have hoped for over 55 years ago as a Stonewall veteran.
“If we are visible, that creates dialogue. Dialogue creates education, education creates equality,” said Segal.
The Stonewall Uprising on June 28, 1969, began in response to a routine police raid on a gay bar, according to the Library of Congress.
Segal recalls the lights in the bar blinking on and off — signifying the arrival of the police who would typically “come in, take some money and leave.” But that’s not what he says happened that night.
“The police burst through the doors, started breaking up the bar, started throwing liquor bottles around, took people and threw them up against the wall — screamed, shouted, it was the most violent thing I’ve ever seen in my life,” said Segal.
Patrons responded by fighting back, entrapping the police in the bar: “We were in an uprising against those who oppressed us. For the first time in history, the people that are always incarcerating us, we were now incarcerating them,” Segal said.
Before the 1960s, living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer person was largely illegal, according to the National Park Service.
“At that time, we as a community were totally invisible,” said Segal. “LGBT people were not in newspapers, were not in magazines, were not radio, not in television.”
NYPD officials have since apologized for past anti-LGBTQ practices and the raid of Stonewall.
The Stonewall Inn, as it stands today, only holds a part of where the original bar once stood. The visitor’s center is now housed in the other half of the original bar — reclaiming the dark LGBTQ history of the location.
“The power of place can be felt walking through the Greenwich Village streets where people stood up and spoke out, paving the way for equality for all,” said Theresa Pierno, president and CEO for the National Parks Conservation Association, in a recent statement. “When you explore the new visitor center, you’re learning from and honoring those courageous people. Stonewall will continue to inspire for generations and we’re proud to work to help ensure our national parks include diverse, inclusive stories that welcome and represent the people that shaped our nation.”
The bar became a national monument in 2016 under the Obama administration. Shortly after, LGBTQ advocacy group PrideLive secured the lease to the long vacant 51 Christopher Street part of the historic location and transformed it into the center it is today.
The center – organized by two queer women of color, PrideLive’s Diana Rodriguez and Ann Marie Gothard – hopes to serve as a living monument to those who have shaped the LGBTQ equality movement.
It has visual art displays and a dedicated theater space, with the hopes of growing even larger to tell more Stonewall stories. Segal in particular hopes to see further discussions about the intersectionality of the LGBTQ liberation movement and its connections to other movements for equality and civil rights.
“We’re intertwined with history, but people have made us invisible,” said Segal.
He said he’s seen backlash against the community throughout his lifetime whenever there is progress. This latest rise in anti-LGBTQ sentiment in the U.S. — particularly anti-transgender sentiment — is not shocking to him.
“We’re not going to be invisible ever again,” he added.
The center’s jukebox, the same model as the one that was previously housed in the original Stonewall Inn, plays the same songs that would have been played at the time. It gives Segal chills.
“I’ll stand back and I’ll close my eyes and I will almost dream of myself being back there,” said Segal.
He continued, “Please don’t be mournful. Be cheerful, because what happened [in the LGBTQ equality movement] got us to where we are today. So we should be somewhat celebratory. I know some of us didn’t make it. But we’re in a better place thanks to those people.”
(NEW YORK) — President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump met for a showdown over policy and their records, but not everything claimed by the candidates onstage was factual.
Inflation rates, border crossings, Jan. 6, abortion, the stock market and the cost to America of the Paris Climate Accord were among the issues the two sparred over that need a closer look.
ABC News’ politics team analyzed their comments to break down fact from fiction.
Did Biden inherit 9% inflation?
TRUMP CLAIM: “He also said he inherited 9% inflation — no. He inherited almost no inflation, and it stayed … stayed that way for 14 months, and it blew up under his leadership …”
FACT CHECK: This is mostly true. In January 2021, when Biden was inaugurated, year-over-year inflation was about 1.4%. Under Biden, year-over-year inflation peaked at 9.1 % in June 2022. But it is now down to 3.3 %. Under Trump, inflation rose 7.76 % from January 2017 to January 2021, and year-over-year inflation peaked at 2.9 % in July 2018.
–Zunaira Zaki
Were there any military conflicts during Trump’s term in office?
TRUMP CLAIM: “We got…a lot of credit for the military, and no wars and so many other things. Everything was rocking good.”
FACT CHECK: Needs context. While it’s true that Trump did not formally declare war against a foreign power while in the White House, he significantly scaled up military action in Syria and Iraq in the fight against ISIS and also authorized the air strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, putting the country on the brink of a direct conflict with Iran. Pentagon records also show that at least 65 American troops were killed in action during Trump’s term.
–Shannon Kingston
Crime and the Border
TRUMP CLAIM: “We have a border that’s the most dangerous place anywhere in the world, considered the most dangerous place anywhere in the world, and he opened it up, and these killers are coming into our country, and they are raping and killing women.”
FACT-CHECK: False. The reality is that no evidence points to a significant surge in crime caused by recent arrivals. The former president’s claims ignore the fact that, overall, crime is down across the country. According to the latest FBI statistics released quarterly, violent crimes were down 6% in quarter 4 of 2023 (through Dec 2023) compared to the same time frame in 2022. There was a 13% decline in murders and a 4% drop in property crimes across the country. That declining trend followed unprecedented spikes in 2019 and 2020, Trump’s last two years in office.
–Armando Tonatiuh Torres-García
Hunter Biden’s laptop
TRUMP CLAIM: “It’s the same thing — 51 intelligence agents said that the laptop was Russian disinformation. It wasn’t that — it came from his son, Hunter. It wasn’t Russia.”
FACT CHECK: True, but needs unpacking At the final presidential debate of the 2020 cycle, Joe Biden suggested the contents of his son’s laptop’s hard drive — which by then had been dubbed the “laptop from hell” in the New York Post and other conservative outlets — were “garbage” and a “Russian plant.”
Biden’s claim that the laptop hard drive was a “Russian plant” was an apparent reference to a letter signed by 51 retired intelligence officials who wrote that the timing of its emergence “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
Several of those signees have since said that Biden mischaracterized the language in their letter.
Furthermore, earlier this month, prosecutors at Hunter Biden’s criminal trial in Delaware introduced the laptop into evidence and, in one of the more theatrical moments of the trial, showed jurors the physical MacBook Pro 13 that Hunter Biden purportedly abandoned at a Wilmington computer repair shop in April 2019.
“Ultimately, in examining that laptop, were investigators able to confirm that it was Hunter Biden’s laptop?” prosecutor Derek Hines asked an FBI agent who testified as an expert witness in Hunter Biden’s recent gun case.
“Yes,” the FBI agent said.
–Lucien Bruggeman
Late-term abortions
TRUMP’S CLAIM: “The problem they have is they are radical because they will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month and even after birth.”
FACT CHECK: This is not true. Abortions that occur later in pregnancy are around 1% of abortions, according to KFF. Democrats do not call for abortions late into pregnancies, and infanticide is illegal in the U.S. Democrats often respond that abortions that do happen in the third trimester are the result of tragic circumstances in a pregnancy.
–Cheyenne Haslett
Who had a better stock market?
TRUMP CLAIM: “[Biden] created mandates. That was a disaster for our country but other than that we had, we had given back a country where the stock market actually was higher than pre-COVID, and nobody thought that was even possible.
FACT CHECK: Unclear. The Dow hit 30,000 for the first time on November 24, 2020. But that was after the last presidential election, so it’s hard to say whether it was because of Trump’s presidency or because of Biden’s win.
–Zunaira Zaki
Are more terrorists now crossing the border into America?
TRUMP CLAIM: “We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now.”
FACT CHECK: Largely exaggerated. Trump appears to be referring to the increasing number of migrants on the federal terror “watchlist” who are encountered at the border. The number of people encountered by border authorities on the watchlist jumped from three in Trump’s last full year to nearly 100 in the first full fiscal year under Biden. However, the Terrorist Screening Dataset, maintained by the FBI, includes names of people who have suspected ties to individuals who may be affiliated with a foreign terror organization. It is not a comprehensive list of actual terrorists.
–Quinn Owen
Paris Climate Accord
TRUMP CLAIM: “The Paris Accord was going to cost us a trillion dollars and China nothing and Russia nothing, and India nothing. It was a rip-off of the United States, and I ended it because I didn’t want to waste that money because they treated us horribly.”
FACT CHECK: Not entirely true. Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accord on his first day in office, according to a State Department memo. One-hundred and ninety-six countries signed on to the Paris Accord, agreeing to work together to limit the impacts of climate change and global warming. As part of that, the more developed, wealthier nations committed to contributing $100 billion to support developing countries more vulnerable to climate change’s impacts.
Biden pledged to work with Congress to authorize $11 billion to contribute to the Paris Agreement’s $100 billion in funds to support developing countries who need help adapting to climate change’s impacts. As of 2023, the U.S. was on track to meet that goal with $9.5 billion committed to financing global climate initiatives, according to the State Department.
–Stephanie Ebbs
National Guardsmen on Jan. 6
TRUMP CLAIM: “I offered her [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] 10,000 soldiers who are National Guard. And she turned them down, and the mayor of – in writing, by the way, the mayor, in writing, turned it down. The mayor of D.C. They turned it down. I offered 10,000 because I could see I had virtually nothing to do. They asked me to go make a speech.”
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.”
–Luis Martinez
Iran, Israel, and Oct. 7
TRUMP CLAIM: “He [Putin] never would have invaded Ukraine, never, just like Israel would have never been invaded in a million years by Hamas. You know why? Because Iran was broke with me. I wouldn’t let anybody do business with them. They ran out of money. They were broke. They had no money for Hamas. They had no money for anything, no money for terror. That’s why you had no terror at all during my administration.”
FACT CHECK: Not true. Iran has been Hamas’ principal backer for decades, including through the Trump presidency. Although Trump did withdraw from an Obama-era nuclear deal and levy sanctions against Tehran that dealt a sharp blow to its economy, records retrieved from inside Gaza by the Israeli Defense Forces and verified by independent news outlets indicate Iran still funneled tens of millions of dollars to Hamas during his administration. Two of Trump’s top advisers for Middle Eastern affairs also claimed that Iran was supplying Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups with $100 million each year in an op-ed published in 2019.
–Shannon Kingston
Trump’s Manhattan hush-money case
TRUMP CLAIM: “That was a case that was started, and … they moved a high-ranking official, a DOJ, into the Manhattan DA’s office to start that case. … [Biden] basically went after his political opponent because he thought it was going to damage me.”
FACT CHECK: There are a few things to unpack here – but there is no evidence to support either statement.
First, there is no evidence that Joe Biden, as president of the United States, directed or choreographed a state prosecution — which was brought by the Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg. Biden has no authority to do so, and there is no evidence to support Trump’s assertion.
Second, with regard to the “high-ranking” DOJ official who Trump claims was moved into the District Attorney’s office to “start the case,” Trump appears to be referring to Matthew Colangelo, who left the Justice Department in December of 2022, years after the investigation began. There is no evidence that Biden or the Justice Department coordinated Colangelo’s move. The case was brought by Bragg, an elected Democrat in New York.
Trump was found guilty by a jury of his peers.
–Lucien Bruggeman
Were tax cuts under Trump the largest in history?
TRUMP CLAIM: “I gave you the largest tax cut in history. I also gave you the largest regulation cut in history, that’s why we had all the jobs.”
FACT-CHECK: False. According to Erica York at the Tax Foundation, the Trump-era tax cut (TCJA) was a large tax cut but not the largest in history. If you look at percent of revenue as share of GDP in the first two years, several tax cuts going back to 1940 were larger. The most recent that was larger was the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.Separately, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the tax cuts under President Ronald Reagan were the largest tax cuts in recent history as a percent of GDP.
At the time the law went into effect, the Tax Foundation estimated that it would boost long-term employment by more than 300,000 jobs. But Moody’s Chief Economist Mark Zandi says, “the tax cuts did support job growth, but at the cost of adding approximately $2 trillion to the nation’s debt.” He added, “The regulatory changes had no measurable impact on job growth.”
