(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a ruling that will allow emergency abortion access in Idaho, for now, despite the state’s near-total ban on the procedure.
The court dismissed the case without considering the core issues, instead sending it back to the lower courts for further proceedings.
The move reinstates a federal district court’s ruling that a federal law requiring emergency rooms to provide stabilizing care to all patients preempts Idaho’s abortion ban when a woman’s health is at risk.
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, enacted in 2022 after the fall of Roe v. Wade, prohibits nearly all abortions with exceptions only in reported cases of rape, incest or to prevent the death of the mother.
The Biden administration argued before the court the law is in conflict with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which requires hospitals receiving Medicare funds to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment.”
But, Justice Elena Kagan argued, Idaho allows abortions only when necessary to prevent a pregnant woman’s death.
“By their terms, the two laws differ,” she wrote. “What falls in the gap between them are cases in which continuing a pregnancy does not put a woman’s life in danger, but still places her at risk of grave health consequences, including loss of fertility. In that situation, federal law requires a hospital to offer an abortion, whereas Idaho law prohibits that emergency care.”
Justice Samuel Alito criticized the court for dismissing the case, arguing the government’s preemption argument is “plainly unsound.”
“Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. That is regrettable, ” Alito wrote in a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said despite the court’s ruling, the state will still be able “enforce its law to save lives in the vast majority of circumstances” while litigation continues.
“I remain committed to protect unborn life and ensure women in Idaho receive necessary medical care, and I will continue my outreach to doctors and hospitals across Idaho to ensure that they understand what our law requires,” Labrador said in a statement. “We look forward to ending this administration’s relentless overreach into Idahoans’ right to protect and defend life.”
The case marked the first time the high court has ruled in a case regarding state-level abortion restrictions passed after its conservative majority struck down Roe v. Wade in 2022. Since then, 21 states have successfully enacted restrictions or bans on abortion and 14 of those states have total bans with few exceptions.
President Joe Biden said that while the ruling will ensure emergency abortion access in Idaho for now, it is part of a dangerous trend of restrictions passed by Republican lawmakers over the past two years.
“No woman should be denied care, made to wait until she’s near death, or forced to flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs,” Biden said. “This should never happen in America.”
(WASHINGTON) — A narrowly divided Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision struck down a hard-fought bankruptcy plan for OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma that would have awarded $6 billion to state and local governments to fight opioid addiction and payouts to more than 100,000 victims of opioid overdoses while also extending immunity to Purdue’s owners, the Sackler family.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority that included Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the text of the bankruptcy code does not allow discharging a third party — in this case, the Sacklers — from any legal liability when they are not themselves declaring bankruptcy.
The discharge was the heart of the case, challenged by the U.S. government as unlawful and unfair to a small number of victims in the class-action suit who wanted to preserve a chance to sue the Sacklers for damages in civil court. More than 95% of victims and creditors who voted on the plan during the proceedings approved of it.
“As the people’s elected representatives, Members of Congress enjoy the power, consistent with the Constitution, to make policy judgments about the proper scope of a bankruptcy discharge. Someday, Congress may choose to add to the bankruptcy code special rules for opioid-related bankruptcies as it has for asbestos-related cases. Or it may choose not to do so. Either way, if a policy decision like that is to be made, it is for Congress to make,” Gorsuch wrote.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a dissent joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, blasted the decision as “wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families.”
“Opioid victims are now deprived of the substantial monetary recovery that they long fought for and finally secured after years of litigation,” he wrote.
“The consequences will be severe,” Kavanaugh continued. “There will be no $5.5 to $6 billion settlement payment to the estate and there will be no viable path to any victim recovery. And without the plan’s substantial funding to prevent and treat opioid addiction, the victims and creditors bluntly described further repercussions: ‘more people will die without this plan.'”
The nationwide settlement would have forced the Sacklers to give up Purdue and transform the business into a nonprofit manufacturer of opioid addiction treatments. It would also have awarded millions of dollars to state and local governments to respond to the epidemic and more than $750 million to individuals in payments ranging from $3,800 to $45,000.
OxyContin, which hit the market in 1996, was a key driver of the nation’s opioid epidemic after an aggressive marketing campaign by the company downplayed the dangers of the drug and its addictiveness.
While Gorsuch explicitly disclaimed any impact of his opinion on preexisting bankruptcy settlements, some legal analysts had worried that it could overturn other long-fought deals, including the Boy Scouts of America’s bankruptcy and payout to victims of sexual abuse.
Ed Neiger, an attorney representing 60,000 victims in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy, called Thursday’s ruling a “major setback” for opioid victims and their families.
“As a result of the senseless three-year crusade by the government against the plan, thousands of people died of overdose, and today’s decision will lead to more needless overdose deaths,” Neiger said in a statement. “The addiction crisis is the largest health crisis of our time, with hundreds of people dying of overdose every day, yet the victims have been abandoned by every branch of the government: the legislative, the executive, and now the judicial.”
In a statement, Purdue called the ruling “heart-crushing because it invalidates a settlement supported by nearly all of our creditors — including states, local governments, personal injury victims, schools, and hospitals — that would have delivered billions of dollars for victim compensation, opioid crisis abatement, and overdose rescue and addiction treatment medicines.”
“Critically, the ruling is limited to the narrow legal issue regarding the scope of the third-party releases conferred by the Plan,” the statement continued, in part. “The decision does nothing to deter us from the twin goals of using settlement dollars for opioid abatement and turning the company into an engine for good.”
Signage outside of the McCamish Pavilion on the Georgia Institute of Technology campus ahead of the first presidential debate in Atlanta, Georgia, US, on Wednesday, June 26, 2024. (Eva Marie Uzcategui/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The presidential debate on Thursday will showcase Joe Biden and Donald Trump going toe-to-toe on policy for the first time this election cycle.
The matchup is the only time a sitting president has squared off with a former president, meaning each candidate will have a record to defend and a possible second-term strategy to lay out to the American people.
Hot-button topics all but certain to be discussed include immigration, the economy, reproductive rights and democracy.
Here is a closer look at where Biden and Trump stand on key election-year issues, as reflected and ranked in a recent ABC News/Ipsos poll:
Cost of living
Inflation has consistently polled as a top issue for voters, leaving both candidates eager to draw favorable contrasts at the debate.
On the campaign trail, Trump has frequently criticized Biden for the nation’s yearslong bout of elevated inflation. Consumer prices have climbed roughly 20% over the three-plus years since Biden took office, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show.
“Inflation has killed our economy,” Trump said at a rally in Racine, Wisconsin, last week. “It’s a nation buster.”
For his part, Biden has acknowledged that price increases remain too high but he has touted significant progress in bringing inflation down well below its peak. He has also noted that wage increases are outpacing inflation, leaving Americans with greater spending power despite the high prices.
On policy, Trump has targeted Biden over environmental regulations such as limits placed on some oil and gas drilling, though last year the U.S. produced more oil than any year in its history, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Biden, by contrast, has promoted proposals that seek to alleviate stubborn prices for goods such as housing and prescription drugs. He has portrayed Trump’s proposed tax cuts and tariffs as policies that would raise prices and benefit the wealthy.
“They’re fighting for billionaires on Park Avenue — I’m fighting for families like the ones I grew up with in Scranton,” Biden said in a statement earlier this month.
Crime, gun violence
Both Biden and Trump are expected to boast about their records on lowering crime. In his State of the Union Address in March, Biden said the nation reported a historically low murder rate in 2023 and that overall violent crime had plummeted to one of the lowest levels in 50 years.
But Trump can counter that the U.S. violent crime rate in the nation’s 70 major cities is still much higher than when he was president with murders up 20% and aggravated assaults up 16% since 2019, according to the Major Cities Chief’s Association.
Democracy
Both candidates are making what happened in November 2020 and on Jan. 6, 2021, central to their 2024 campaigns — in very different ways.
Defending democracy is an animating theme of Biden’s reelection bid, as he and his team paint Trump as an existential threat to the country’s founding principles and the upcoming election as a battle for the nation’s “soul.”
“It’s clear that when he lost in 2020, something snapped in him,” Biden said of Trump at a campaign reception last month, where he criticized Trump for “unleashing an in insurrection,” calling Jan. 6 rioters “patriots” and his comment that he would be a dictator on “Day 1.”
Trump is now trying to flip the script and counter that Biden is the “threat to democracy” and accuses him of weaponizing the federal government and judicial system to prosecute a political opponent.
At the same time, he continues to make false claims about the 2020 election and vows to enact retribution on his political foes if elected.
Health care, drug prices
During his presidency, Trump tried and failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but he was able to make some significant changes, including ending the individual mandate penalty — issuing a fine if you are uninsured. Trump is vowing that if elected to a second term, he will replace the ACA with his own “much better” program. If the ACA is repealed, it would result in millions of people losing their insurance, missed health screenings and even lost jobs, estimates suggest.
Meanwhile Biden has restored some of the cuts Trump made, including funding for consumer assistance and a record number of people signed up for health insurance through ACA in 2023. The HHS has said the Biden administration “continues to make increasing coverage a top priority”
Both Trump and Biden have spoken about the high price of prescription drugs but have tackled the issue differently.
The Trump administration did not do much to lower prices or propose a plan of its own but did start a program to lower out-of-pocket insulin costs for seniors on Medicare and started a pathway for states to bring in lower-priced drugs from Canada, which Biden followed through.
In 2022, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which capped out-of-pocked insulin costs at $35. Additionally, last year, the Biden administration announced that it would begin direct price negotiations on 10 widely-used drugs under Medicare, an attempt to drive down out-of-pocket costs for seniors, which will go into effect in 2026.
The administration said it plans to negotiate more drug prices through 2029 for up to 60 different medications.
Immigration, border security
Throughout most of Biden’s presidency, Republicans have seized on the high number of apprehensions made by the U.S. Border Patrol — a key indicator of illegal crossing attempts.
However, after border apprehensions reached historic highs last December, the numbers have since declined. The Border Patrol made 117,906 apprehensions along the southwest border in May — marking the third consecutive monthly decline.
Additionally, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Wednesday that authorities at the border have nearly doubled the number of migrants deported or returned since the Biden administration implemented its latest round of restrictions on the right for migrants to claim asylum.
“We are imposing stricter consequences for those who crossed the border without authorization,” Mayorkas said in Tucson, Arizona Wednesday. “These actions are changing the calculus for those considering crossing our border.”
Over the past three weeks, Mayorkas said, the DHS has operated more than 100 international removal flights, returning more than 24,000 people to more than 40 countries.
Border Patrol encounters have also dropped by more than 40% across the southern border since the restrictions were implemented, Mayorkas said.
Foreign policy, world standing
In polls ranking voters’ priorities, foreign policy tends to lag well behind domestic issues. But two major wars raging overseas, pressing U.S. national security concerns, and division over Biden’s approach to Gaza amid an extremely tight race have the potential to change that.
Trump has often falsely claimed his time in the White House was free of international conflicts and asserted that he could have the war in Ukraine wrapped up in a matter of hours. But aside from political bluster, Trump has said little about his actual plans other than suggesting he would cut back on U.S. military aid to Kyiv.
Similarly, Trump has also called for a speedy end to the Israel-Hamas war — urging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “get it over with” while also criticizing the optics of the country’s campaign in Gaza during an April interview.
But the former president does have some experience with attempting to resolve the decades-long, underlying conflict driving the war today. In early 2020, the Trump stood alongside Netanyahu as rolled out his detailed plan for a two-state solution, but the proposal was seen as one-sided in favor of Israel and flatly rejected by Palestinian leaders.
Rather than expounding on his plans for another four years in office, Biden’s biggest challenge is justifying what’s currently happening on the ground in Gaza to would-be Democratic voters who are outraged about his administration’s ongoing support for Israel.
And that outrage is likely to be on full display as the candidates face off. In recent weeks, Pro-Palestinian demonstrators have staged large protests outside of the White House and fundraisers, and a coalition of several groups are planning to gather outside CNN’s studios the night of the debate.
Biden announced a U.S.-backed proposal for a cease-fire-hostage release plan that his administration believes could ultimately end the Israel-Hamas war in late May. However, Hamas has not accepted it. Negotiators are still trying to move talks forward, but some lawmakers in the president’s own party are growing anxious and pressing the White House for a fallback plan.
The Biden campaign is likely to see Ukraine as more favorable terrain and emphasize the president’s work to strengthen critical alliances like NATO — drawing a sharp contrast with Trump, who said in February that he would encourage Russia to invade members that did not meet defense spending requirements.
US military
Both Biden and Trump agree that no U.S. military troops should be sent to Ukraine to counter Russia’s invasion. But they differ on whether to continue providing U.S. military aid to Ukraine that so far totals $70 billion with Biden strongly advocating for it to continue. Trump had previously supported providing aid to Ukraine via a loan arrangement, but has more recently indicated that he would quickly move to cut it off.
Most of the military aid provided to Ukraine by the Biden administration comes from existing U.S. military stocks so it can get to the battlefield quickly. The dollar cost associated with the aid is the amount being spent on new weapons, built in the United States, to replace those being given to Ukraine.
The Biden administration has continued the Trump administration’s strategic focus on the Indo-Pacific to deter China’s aggressive behavior in the region. But the war between Hamas and Israel has once again shown how that turn can be difficult when there are flare-ups in the Middle East.
Stateside, the U.S. military has become a target of domestic political debates on abortion and diversity as some of the Pentagon’s policies were criticized by Republicans. For example, Biden reversed a Trump administration decision to end diversity training within the department which triggered Republican criticisms that the military’s recruiting was being affected by what they labeled as a “woke military.”
Reproductive rights
Since the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, ending federal protections for abortion rights, care has transformed across the country.
The candidates are on opposite sides of the issue: Trump — fulfilling his 2016 campaign promise — nominated three of the five conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to overrule Roe, has taken careful steps back from the issue, saying it should be left up to the states to regulate access, while Biden supports abortion rights and has called on Congress to codify protections available under Roe.
At least 14 states have ceased nearly all abortion services since Roe was overruled, and seven others have restricted access to abortion care. In the first half of 2023, one in five patients had to travel across state lines to access abortion care, nearly double the number of patients traveling for care in 2020.
In the midterm elections, voters in every state who had abortion questions on the ballot chose to uphold abortion rights, including conservative states Kansas and Kentucky. At least four more states have abortion or reproductive rights related questions on the ballot this November.
Culture wars, education
A new era of culture wars has dominated politics in recent years, a war Trump plans to embrace in his plans for education.
Trump’s campaign platform “Agenda 47” details a plan centering on prayer in public schools, an expansion of parental rights, patriotism as a centerpiece of education and the “American Way of Life.”
Trump’s plan also states he “will promote positive education about the nuclear family, the roles of mothers and fathers, and celebrating rather than erasing the things that make men and women different and unique.”
Trump has promised to shut down the Department of Education, sending “all education work and needs back to the States,” according to his Agenda 47 plan.
As for higher education, Trump’s agenda states that he plans to create a new university called the “American Academy” and fund it by “taxing, fining, and suing” private universities.
Trump has also expressed plans to dismantle so-called “woke” or diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in education across the board.
For Biden, his administration has been focused on tackling student loan debt, increasing funding to public schools and addressing COVID-19 era education setbacks.
Throughout his time in office thus far, the Biden administration has approved $167 billion in relief for 4.75 million borrowers across the country,
Biden also touts his American Rescue Plan for sending $130 billion in funding to “address the academic and mental health needs of students,” with a focus on low-income and high-need schools, including the hiring of teachers, counselors, social workers, and others.
Biden has denounced the recent rise in book banning efforts across the country, as well as Republican-backed legislation that restricts lessons on race, sex, gender, and more in schools.
Instead, he has embraced diversity initiatives aiming to tackling inequality with direct funding to low-income schools, the development of magnet schools, HBCUs, and more.
On LGBTQ issues, the two sides also continue to be at odds.
Biden has signed several executive orders to combat anti-LGBTQ discrimination, including ending funding to any programs running conversion therapy, expanding resources for LGBTQ youth suicide prevention, expanding HIV/AIDS prevention strategies and research, and more.
Biden also supports the Equality Act, which would expand federal civil rights law to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.
Biden recently expanded Title IX to include gender identity under sex-based discrimination protections.
Trump has vowed to dismantle the new Title IX addition, prevent gender-affirming care for transgender youth, remove federal funding from institutions that support transgender identities and more, according to his Agenda 47.
Trump also states he plans on asking Congress to pass a bill that would declare that there are only two genders and that they are determined at birth.
Republican nominee Donald Trump speaks as Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton looks on during the final presidential debate at the Thomas & Mack Center on the campus of the University of Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Oct. 19, 2016. (Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — When former President Donald Trump takes the debate stage against President Joe Biden Thursday night, among those monitoring his performance could be the federal prosecutors seeking to take Trump to trial on criminal charges of attempting to subvert the last presidential election.
In previous filings in their case against Trump — which remains stalled as the Supreme Court weighs his claim of presidential immunity — prosecutors have singled out comments Trump made in presidential debates in both 2016 and 2020 that they said could be introduced at an eventual trial.
The exchanges, prosecutors claim, would be used to help them prove to a jury Trump’s intent and state of mind as he engaged in his alleged criminal effort to overturn his 2020 election loss to Biden.
“To ensure the destabilizing impact of his widespread election fraud claims, in the run-up to the 2020 election, the defendant repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of presidential power if he lost the election,” prosecutors said in a December court filing. “The Government will offer proof of this refusal as intrinsic evidence of the defendant’s criminal conspiracies because it shows his plan to remain in power at any cost — even in the face of potential violence.”
Specifically, prosecutors said they planned to use Trump’s exchange in his debate against Hillary Clinton in October of 2016 where he repeatedly refused to accept the results of the upcoming election — saying that Trump then “pursued the same strategy” four years later.
In that debate, moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump, “You’ve been warning at rallies recently that this election is rigged and that Hillary Clinton is in the process of trying to steal it from you. Your running mate Governor Pence pledged on Sunday that he and you, his words, will absolutely accept the result of this election … I want to ask you here on the stage tonight, do you make the same commitment that you’ll absolutely accept the result of the election?”
“I will look at it at the time,” Trump replied.
Prosecutors said in their filing, “The defendant’s consistent refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power, dating back to the 2016 presidential campaign, is admissible evidence of his plan to undermine the integrity of the presidential transition process when faced with the possibility of an election result that he would not like, as well as his motive, intent, and plan to interfere with the implementation of an election result with which he was not satisfied.”
In the same filing, prosecutors separately pointed to Trump’s exchange during his September 2020 debate against Biden where he was pressed to denounce the extremist group the Proud Boys.
Wallace, again the moderator, asked Trump, “You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing extremist groups. But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland?”
“Sure, I’m willing to do that,” Trump replied, saying, “Give me a name, go ahead, who would you like me to condemn?”
“Proud Boys,” said Biden, to which Trump, addressing the camera, said, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.”
Prosecutors, in their filing, said that “Members of the group embraced the defendant’s words as an endorsement and printed merchandise with them as a rallying cry.”
Three days after the debate, Trump told Fox News in an interview, “Let me be clear, I condemn the KKK, white supremacists and the Proud Boys.”
In their filing, prosecutors said Trump’s debate remark demonstrates his “encouragement of violence,” further noting that, “after the Proud Boys and other extremist groups participated in obstructing the congressional certification on January 6, the defendant made clear that they were acting consistent with his intent and direction in doing so.”
Trump and his attorneys have pushed back on accusations that his rhetoric sparked the Capitol attack, stressing that Trump told the crowd at his rally that morning, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
But prosecutors have made clear in other filings that, should the Jan. 6 case make it to trial, they would also introduce other public remarks made by Trump.
For instance, prosecutors said in a filing last November that they would plan to cite public statements Trump has made supporting defendants charged in the Capitol attack in an effort to establish his “criminal intent” to a jury.
Arguing that Trump “has never wavered in his support of January 6 offenders,” prosecutors said his statements in recent years calling Jan. 6 “a beautiful day” and stating his intentions to pardon many rioters would be submitted as evidence at trial.
Trump last year pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations,” trying to enlist the vice president to “alter the election results,” and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged — all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.
The former president has denied all wrongdoing and denounced the charges as “a persecution of a political opponent.”
(WASHINGTON) — In September 2020, as Joe Biden and Donald Trump debated for the first time, moderator Chris Wallace asked how they would reassure Americans the next president would be the legitimate winner that November.
Biden encouraged viewers to vote and said the results would be accepted.
Trump’s final words in response: “It’s a rigged election.”
Four years later, whether American democracy is at stake is all but certain to be a key question at Thursday’s debate.
An ABC News/Ipsos poll in May showed “protecting democracy” was among the top four issues for voters but that they were evenly split on which candidate they trusted to do that.
Issue central to both campaigns
Both candidates are making what happened in November 2020 and then a few weeks later on Jan. 6, 2021, central to their 2024 campaigns, albeit in very different ways.
Protecting democracy is an animating theme of Biden’s reelection bid, as his team paints Trump as an existential threat to the country’s founding principles and the upcoming election as a battle for the nation’s “soul.”
That was a focus of Biden’s speech earlier this month marking the 80th anniversary of D-Day, which, despite being delivered at Pointe du Hoc in Normandy, had a clear message for American viewers tuning in back home.
“American democracy asks the hardest things: to believe that we’re part of something bigger than ourselves,” Biden said. “So, democracy begins with each of us.”
More recently, as Trump huddled with Republicans just steps away from the U.S. Capitol to plot his second-term agenda, the Biden-Harris campaign released a 30-second ad filled with imagery from the Jan. 6 attack by a pro-Trump mob.
“There is nothing more sacred than our democracy,” the narrator said. “But Donald Trump’s ready to burn it all down.”
The campaign told ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang that Biden is preparing ways to hold Trump accountable for his track record and remarks he’s made on various topics, including his comment that he’d be a dictator on “Day 1.”
Trump tries to flip ‘threat’ on Biden
Trump, meanwhile, is trying to counter that Biden is the “threat to democracy,” accusing Biden of weaponizing government and the legal system to prosecute a political opponent.
At the same time, he continues to make his relentless, false claims of fraud in the 2020 election. His assertions have been debunked by his own administration officials, including former Attorney General Bill Barr.
“I think the big thing we have to do is stop the cheating,” Trump said just last week in an interview with his former press secretary, Sean Spicer. “We have to stop the fraud.”
Trump consistently promises retribution against his political foes over his 2020 loss and portrays himself to his supporters as a martyr following four historic indictments, two of which allege illegal efforts to remain in power.
“I’m being indicted for you,” he said this past weekend at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s conference in Washington. “Never forget our enemies want to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom. They want to silence me because I will never let them silence you.”
And he’s made Jan. 6 a sort of rallying cry in his campaign, firing up supporters by claiming he would pardon some of those charged or convicted and referring to them as “patriots” and “warriors” — and even “hostages.”
When it comes to the upcoming election, Biden and the White House have committed to accepting the outcome.
Trump told Time magazine last month he believed he would win and thus eliminate the potential for political violence.
(WASHINGTON) — In September 2020, as Joe Biden and Donald Trump debated for the first time, moderator Chris Wallace asked how they would reassure Americans the next president would be the legitimate winner that November.
Biden encouraged viewers to vote and said the results would be accepted.
Trump’s final words in response: “It’s a rigged election.”
Four years later, whether American democracy is at stake is all but certain to be a key question at Thursday’s debate.
An ABC News/Ipsos poll in May showed “protecting democracy” was among the top four issues for voters but that they were evenly split on which candidate they trusted to do that.
Issue central to both campaigns
Both candidates are making what happened in November 2020 and then a few weeks later on Jan. 6, 2021, central to their 2024 campaigns, albeit in very different ways.
Protecting democracy is an animating theme of Biden’s reelection bid, as his team paints Trump as an existential threat to the country’s founding principles and the upcoming election as a battle for the nation’s “soul.”
That was a focus of Biden’s speech earlier this month marking the 80th anniversary of D-Day, which, despite being delivered at Pointe du Hoc in Normandy, had a clear message for American viewers tuning in back home.
“American democracy asks the hardest things: to believe that we’re part of something bigger than ourselves,” Biden said. “So, democracy begins with each of us.”
More recently, as Trump huddled with Republicans just steps away from the U.S. Capitol to plot his second-term agenda, the Biden-Harris campaign released a 30-second ad filled with imagery from the Jan. 6 attack by a pro-Trump mob.
“There is nothing more sacred than our democracy,” the narrator said. “But Donald Trump’s ready to burn it all down.”
The campaign told ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang that Biden is preparing ways to hold Trump accountable for his track record and remarks he’s made on various topics, including his comment that he’d be a dictator on “Day 1.”
Trump tries to flip ‘threat’ on Biden
Trump, meanwhile, is trying to counter that Biden is the “threat to democracy,” accusing Biden of weaponizing government and the legal system to prosecute a political opponent.
At the same time, he continues to make his relentless, false claims of fraud in the 2020 election. His assertions have been debunked by his own administration officials, including former Attorney General Bill Barr.
“I think the big thing we have to do is stop the cheating,” Trump said just last week in an interview with his former press secretary, Sean Spicer. “We have to stop the fraud.”
Trump consistently promises retribution against his political foes over his 2020 loss and portrays himself to his supporters as a martyr following four historic indictments, two of which allege illegal efforts to remain in power.
“I’m being indicted for you,” he said this past weekend at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s conference in Washington. “Never forget our enemies want to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom. They want to silence me because I will never let them silence you.”
And he’s made Jan. 6 a sort of rallying cry in his campaign, firing up supporters by claiming he would pardon some of those charged or convicted and referring to them as “patriots” and “warriors” — and even “hostages.”
When it comes to the upcoming election, Biden and the White House have committed to accepting the outcome.
Trump told Time magazine last month he believed he would win and thus eliminate the potential for political violence.
Joe Biden, 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, right, and U.S. President Donald Trump speak during the U.S. presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., on Oct. 22, 2020. (Chip Somodevilla/Bloomberg via Getty Images, FILE)
(WASHINGTON) — As extreme weather events impact Americans across the country, will climate change get the attention it demands on the presidential debate stage?
Marking the first presidential debate of the 2024 general election, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are set to take the stage Thursday night in a studio at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters. The candidates will reconvene for a second debate in September, hosted by ABC News.
Topics surrounding climate change, including the federal response to extreme weather events, are among the numerous matters that divide Biden and Trump’s campaigns, according to environmental experts.
“Perhaps nowhere is the contrast between these two candidates sharper, or of greater public significance, than on their approach to the climate crisis,” Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Action Fund, told ABC News, adding, “The American people need to understand that choice.”
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 could be make-or-break events for Biden or Trump.
“Americans deserve to know what the next president will do both to reduce the severity of the climate crisis and to protect them from the impacts that are already inevitable,” Ben Edgerly Walsh, climate and energy program director with Vermont Public Interest Research Group, told ABC News.
“Whether you live in Phoenix, Arizona, Palm Beach, Florida or Montpelier, Vermont, or anywhere else in this country, the climate crisis is going to impact you,” Walsh continued.
Nearly nine out of 10 Americans (87%) have faced at least one extreme weather event in the past five years, including extreme heat waves, severe winter storms, major drought, hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes or major flooding, according to a 2023 survey from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
Among the Americans who have experienced extreme weather events, three-quarters of those polled believe climate change has been at least partially responsible, according to the survey.
“People care about having access to drinking water and being able to turn their power on,” Alys Campaigne, a climate initiative leader with the Southern Environmental Law Center, told ABC News, emphasizing how the effects of climate catastrophes do not adhere to political party lines.
“They care about supporting leaders who can fix the problems,” she said.
Throughout his time in office, Trump repeatedly denounced climate change as a “hoax” while “reversing, revoking or rolling back” more than 100 environmental rules and actions established by the Obama administration, according to analysis published by the New York Times in 2021.
In November 2020, Trump formally withdrew the U.S. from the United Nations’ Paris Climate Accord, an internationally agreed-upon effort to mitigate climate change and ensure that global temperatures do not increase more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
Over a year later, President Biden officially reentered the U.S. back into the Paris Agreement on his first day in office.
If Trump were to be elected for another term, Bapna worries that Trump’s reported close ties with fossil fuel company leaders would “gut” federal climate action.
The Washington Post reported last month that Trump, during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, asked oil executives to raise $1 billion for his campaign, with the promise of “scrapping” Biden-enacted policies on electric vehicles and wind energy.
On May 13, during a rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, Trump promised he would halt offshore wind energy projects “on day one” if elected.
“I’m going to write it out in an executive order. It’s going to end on day one,” Trump said, claiming that wind turbines “kill” whales.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has denied these claims, reporting there are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities.
“Both candidates should address the fact that climate change is not just a scientific topic, but it is something that is felt by everyday Americans,” Dr. Jeremy Porter, head of climate implications research with First Street Foundation, told ABC News.
“We did see a cut to climate-related funding under the last Trump administration, so it is not unlikely to see the same under the new administration simply based on past practices,” Porter said.
Ahead of the election, several former Trump administration officials and conservative activists have released a “Presidential Transition Project” titled Project 2025 that lists proposals for the new administration if Trump were to take office.
Among the proposals are sweeping cuts to climate initiatives, saying the next administration will “stop the war on oil and natural gas.”
Trump has said his motivation behind withdrawing from climate initiatives and pushing for continued reliance on oil and gas is driven by economic needs.
“As President, I will set a national goal of ensuring that America has the No. 1 lowest cost of energy of any industrial country anywhere on Earth,” Trump said on his campaign website. “We will not only match China we will be cheaper than China by a lot. And more energy will mean lower inflation that will mean more jobs.”
Ending subsidies for electric vehicles, withdrawing the country from initiatives for sustainable food production, preventing federal regulators from considering the economic impact of carbon emissions and abolishing the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Loan Programs Office, are listed in Project 2025.
The Biden-Harris administration, meanwhile, has channeled substantial funding toward climate action during their term, experts say, namely through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The legislation offers funding, programs and incentives to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, according to the EPA, noting the Act offers, “new access to clean energy tax credits with an emphasis on reaching disadvantaged populations and communities with environmental justice concerns.”
In April 2024, the Biden-Harris administration announced $20 billion in awards to expand access to clean energy and climate solutions and lower energy costs for communities across the nation.
Despite taking steps toward a clean-energy future, during Biden’s tenure the U.S. has continued to produce and export the most crude oil out of any country, at any time, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Crude oil production averaged 12.9 million barrels per day in 2023, breaking the previous U.S. and global record of 12.3 million, set in 2019, according to the agency.
Biden’s approval rating on environmental issues was 46% in a Gallup poll conducted in March, higher than his ratings on other issues but still below a majority approval.
The Trump and Biden campaigns did not immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.
“Climate action should not — and cannot — become a victim of politicking,” Dr. M. Sanjayan, CEO of nonprofit Conservation International, said, noting how the U.S. has a “long and storied history of bipartisan environmental leadership” seen in the creation of the national parks system and Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
“Climate change affects all of us, and it’s going to take all of us to ensure that our planet remains habitable for generations to come,” Sanjayan said.
The first presidential debate of the general election Thursday — which is slated much earlier in this presidential election cycle than usual — offers both Biden and Trump a chance to change or reinforce voters’ perceptions.
As the candidates take their debate podiums to address the nation, Sanjayan hopes climate stability is regarded as a priority.
“Both parties need to move policy forward, that’s the real conversation,” Sanjayan said. “The public wants a stable climate.”
Joe Biden, 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, right, and U.S. President Donald Trump speak during the U.S. presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., on Oct. 22, 2020. (Chip Somodevilla/Bloomberg via Getty Images, FILE)
(WASHINGTON) — As extreme weather events impact Americans across the country, will climate change get the attention it demands on the presidential debate stage?
Marking the first presidential debate of the 2024 general election, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are set to take the stage Thursday night in a studio at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters. The candidates will reconvene for a second debate in September, hosted by ABC News.
Topics surrounding climate change, including the federal response to extreme weather events, are among the numerous matters that divide Biden and Trump’s campaigns, according to environmental experts.
“Perhaps nowhere is the contrast between these two candidates sharper, or of greater public significance, than on their approach to the climate crisis,” Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Action Fund, told ABC News, adding, “The American people need to understand that choice.”
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 could be make-or-break events for Biden or Trump.
“Americans deserve to know what the next president will do both to reduce the severity of the climate crisis and to protect them from the impacts that are already inevitable,” Ben Edgerly Walsh, climate and energy program director with Vermont Public Interest Research Group, told ABC News.
“Whether you live in Phoenix, Arizona, Palm Beach, Florida or Montpelier, Vermont, or anywhere else in this country, the climate crisis is going to impact you,” Walsh continued.
Nearly nine out of 10 Americans (87%) have faced at least one extreme weather event in the past five years, including extreme heat waves, severe winter storms, major drought, hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes or major flooding, according to a 2023 survey from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
Among the Americans who have experienced extreme weather events, three-quarters of those polled believe climate change has been at least partially responsible, according to the survey.
“People care about having access to drinking water and being able to turn their power on,” Alys Campaigne, a climate initiative leader with the Southern Environmental Law Center, told ABC News, emphasizing how the effects of climate catastrophes do not adhere to political party lines.
“They care about supporting leaders who can fix the problems,” she said.
Throughout his time in office, Trump repeatedly denounced climate change as a “hoax” while “reversing, revoking or rolling back” more than 100 environmental rules and actions established by the Obama administration, according to analysis published by the New York Times in 2021.
In November 2020, Trump formally withdrew the U.S. from the United Nations’ Paris Climate Accord, an internationally agreed-upon effort to mitigate climate change and ensure that global temperatures do not increase more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
Over a year later, President Biden officially reentered the U.S. back into the Paris Agreement on his first day in office.
If Trump were to be elected for another term, Bapna worries that Trump’s reported close ties with fossil fuel company leaders would “gut” federal climate action.
The Washington Post reported last month that Trump, during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, asked oil executives to raise $1 billion for his campaign, with the promise of “scrapping” Biden-enacted policies on electric vehicles and wind energy.
On May 13, during a rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, Trump promised he would halt offshore wind energy projects “on day one” if elected.
“I’m going to write it out in an executive order. It’s going to end on day one,” Trump said, claiming that wind turbines “kill” whales.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has denied these claims, reporting there are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities.
“Both candidates should address the fact that climate change is not just a scientific topic, but it is something that is felt by everyday Americans,” Dr. Jeremy Porter, head of climate implications research with First Street Foundation, told ABC News.
“We did see a cut to climate-related funding under the last Trump administration, so it is not unlikely to see the same under the new administration simply based on past practices,” Porter said.
Ahead of the election, several former Trump administration officials and conservative activists have released a “Presidential Transition Project” titled Project 2025 that lists proposals for the new administration if Trump were to take office.
Among the proposals are sweeping cuts to climate initiatives, saying the next administration will “stop the war on oil and natural gas.”
Trump has said his motivation behind withdrawing from climate initiatives and pushing for continued reliance on oil and gas is driven by economic needs.
“As President, I will set a national goal of ensuring that America has the No. 1 lowest cost of energy of any industrial country anywhere on Earth,” Trump said on his campaign website. “We will not only match China we will be cheaper than China by a lot. And more energy will mean lower inflation that will mean more jobs.”
Ending subsidies for electric vehicles, withdrawing the country from initiatives for sustainable food production, preventing federal regulators from considering the economic impact of carbon emissions and abolishing the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Loan Programs Office, are listed in Project 2025.
The Biden-Harris administration, meanwhile, has channeled substantial funding toward climate action during their term, experts say, namely through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The legislation offers funding, programs and incentives to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, according to the EPA, noting the Act offers, “new access to clean energy tax credits with an emphasis on reaching disadvantaged populations and communities with environmental justice concerns.”
In April 2024, the Biden-Harris administration announced $20 billion in awards to expand access to clean energy and climate solutions and lower energy costs for communities across the nation.
Despite taking steps toward a clean-energy future, during Biden’s tenure the U.S. has continued to produce and export the most crude oil out of any country, at any time, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Crude oil production averaged 12.9 million barrels per day in 2023, breaking the previous U.S. and global record of 12.3 million, set in 2019, according to the agency.
Biden’s approval rating on environmental issues was 46% in a Gallup poll conducted in March, higher than his ratings on other issues but still below a majority approval.
The Trump and Biden campaigns did not immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.
“Climate action should not — and cannot — become a victim of politicking,” Dr. M. Sanjayan, CEO of nonprofit Conservation International, said, noting how the U.S. has a “long and storied history of bipartisan environmental leadership” seen in the creation of the national parks system and Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
“Climate change affects all of us, and it’s going to take all of us to ensure that our planet remains habitable for generations to come,” Sanjayan said.
The first presidential debate of the general election Thursday — which is slated much earlier in this presidential election cycle than usual — offers both Biden and Trump a chance to change or reinforce voters’ perceptions.
As the candidates take their debate podiums to address the nation, Sanjayan hopes climate stability is regarded as a priority.
“Both parties need to move policy forward, that’s the real conversation,” Sanjayan said. “The public wants a stable climate.”
An Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max-9 aircraft grounded at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in Los Angeles, California, on Monday, Jan. 8, 2024. (Eric Thayer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — For the first time since the Alaska door plug blowout, Boeing brought reporters into the Boeing 737 MAX factory in Renton, Washington. The tightly controlled tour started with an explanation of what led up to the blowout incident and the changes that have happened since January.
According to the explanation from Boeing officials, the fuselage came to Boeing damaged from the supplier. To fix the fuselage, the door plug needed to come off. Before they could get the plug back on properly, the plane needed to be moved to a new outdoor location. The overnight Move Team put the door plug back on to seal the aircraft from the outdoor elements but didn’t install the bolts (that’s not their job, and they expected it to be handled by the other team), the Boeing reps on-site said.
The first team never filled out the paperwork when they removed the door, so it became a perfect storm of the overnight team doing its job to protect the plane from rain, but because there was no paperwork, the next team never put the bolts back on because they didn’t know they were removed, according to company reps.
“Very transparently, the fact that one employee could not fill out paperwork was shocking to all of us,” Elizabeth Lund, chair of Boeing’s Quality Operations Council, told reporters.
During the visit to the Boeing facilities, a company rep said the Alaska Airlines door plug blowout incident has changed how the airplane maker operates, how they look at safety, their culture and the way they do business.
For the frontline workers, it has taken an emotional toll on many of them.
“Yeah, it’s tough here sometimes,” Bill Riley, who has worked with Boeing for 16 years in the Quality department, said. “We’re human like everyone else obviously … And it’s our work that’s being scrutinized and stuff like that.”
“That’s how our team feels; they obviously feel bruised right now. And our job is to listen, and our job is to take time to heal and double-down and focus on exactly what Bill just walked you through, and that’s how we’ll get through this. There’s a lot to be proud of, but there’s a lot of work to do,” Katie Ringgold, vice president and general manager of Boeing’s 737 program, said.
There are 10 stations on the assembly line at the factory, and the safety procedures and production practices at each station have changed. Notably, if a single employee says something is wrong, that employee has the power to stop the entire production line.
Boeing has received 30,000 tips, suggestions, and safety concern reports from employees since the incident. Boeing says they review each one and have made necessary changes when warranted. Lund said company executives call the tips and concerns “gifts.”
Other changes to workflow include:
Each team is required to stand down for one hour each week to discuss concerns or how they can improve.
Boeing has drastically slowed production. The Federal Aviation Administration caps Boeing at 38 planes per month, but Boeing is only producing roughly 20 737s per month until they are confident the factory can handle more.
The factory visited by ABC has an unusually high number of new employees because so many longtime employees left during the COVID pandemic, Boeing reps explained. Many new and senior employees are being retrained, and all new hires get at least two additional weeks of training than they would have had pre-Jan. 5.
Production manuals are being simplified so instructions are easier to digest and easier for those who speak English as a second language, Boeing reps said.
(NEW YORK) — A 16-year-old inmate at a juvenile correctional facility in Wisconsin faces homicide and murder charges after a staff member he is accused of attacking died, court records show.
The incident occurred Monday night at Lincoln Hills School in Irma, a juvenile correctional facility operated by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC).
The staff member — identified as 49-year-old Corey Proulx — suffered critical injuries while attempting to detain a juvenile inmate after the teen allegedly attacked another staff member at the school, according to DOC.
Proulx, a youth counselor at Lincoln Hills School, died Tuesday from his injuries, DOC said.
The teen was charged Wednesday with second-degree reckless homicide, felony murder-battery and two counts of battery in connection with the incident, according to a criminal complaint. During a court appearance on Wednesday, a judge ruled that the suspect — Javarius Hurd — will be charged as an adult.
Hurd’s bond was set at $100,000 and he was ordered to have no contact with Lincoln Hills School staff or the victims’ family members.
He faces up to 58 years in prison if convicted on all charges.
ABC News has reached out to the teen’s attorney for comment.
The teen allegedly told investigators that he had “built-up aggression” toward the initial victim because he believed the female staff member was “abusing their power and treating him unfairly” and planned to attack her, according to the complaint. He allegedly said he asked another juvenile for a cup of soap that he threw at her, according to the complaint.
He is accused of then “repeatedly punching” the unidentified staff member in her face and upper body before fleeing into a courtyard, according to the complaint.
When Proulx followed to detain the teen, Hurd allegedly struck him “multiple times unprovoked” and punched him in the face twice with “full force,” according to the complaint.
Proulx went limp and fell to the ground, striking his head on the pavement, according to the complaint. Surveillance footage captured the incident, the complaint stated.
Proulx was airlifted via medical helicopter to a hospital in critical condition, authorities said. He was declared brain-dead Tuesday afternoon by the Lincoln County coroner, according to the criminal complaint.
The female staff member was treated for her injuries at a hospital and has since been released, according to the complaint.
No other juvenile inmates were involved in the incident, DOC said.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers ordered that U.S. and state flags fly at half-staff through sunset Thursday in honor of Proulx.
“By all accounts, Corey was a dedicated public servant who led with kindness and compassion in his commitment toward helping and supporting the youth he worked with,” Evers said in a statement.
DOC Secretary Jared Hoy said Proulx was a “dedicated professional, colleague, and friend.”
“A career in corrections, with its dual mission to protect the public and guide individuals toward rehabilitation, can be demanding and requires so many sacrifices for our staff and our families, and Corey made the ultimate sacrifice,” Hoy said in a statement. “Our DOC family is mourning Corey’s loss, and we are keeping all of his family members and friends in our thoughts.”
Proulx was remembered by his fiancée and daughter as an “amazing partner, father, son and human being,” DOC said.
Lincoln Hills School Superintendent Klint Trevino said Proulx was a “dedicated and compassionate member of our team, always striving to make a positive impact on the lives of the young individuals we serve.”
State Rep. Michael Schraa, chair of the Assembly’s corrections committee, said in response to Proulx’s death that he plans to conduct an informational hearing on conditions in the DOC.
“This is a prime example of why staff need the appropriate tools to keep themselves and other incarcerated individuals safe,” he said in a statement Wednesday.
