(WASHINGTON) -- The Commission on Presidential Debates is pushing back against suggestions from the Trump campaign that it move its general debate calendar up -- standing firm in its decision to hold the first broadcast on Sept. 16, 2024.
In a statement released on Wednesday, a day after Trump senior campaign advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles released their own statement urging earlier debates, the commission correctly noted that its September event is the earliest it's ever conducted a debate. The previous record was set in 1980, when Republican Ronald Reagan and Independent John Anderson went head-to-head on Sept. 21.
Trump senior advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles on Wednesday evening made an additional statement on the commission saying its general debate schedule will remain unchanged this cycle.
The Trump advisers reiterated the campaign's willingness to work directly with the Biden campaign in organizing earlier debates, calling on "every television network" to host them "with or without the stubborn Presidential Debates Commission."
The commission noted that, "as it always does, the CPD considered multiple factors in selecting debate dates in order to make them accessible by the American public," including religious and federal holidays, early voting, and the dates on which individual states close their ballots.
The commission also pushed back against the Trump advisers' claims that "millions of Americans will have already cast their ballots" at the time of the first debate, noting that it "purposefully chose September 16 after a comprehensive study of early voting rules in every state," including taking into consideration North Carolina's Sept. 6 start to sending out mail-in ballots.
On Sept. 16, the day of the first debate, Pennsylvania voters can receive, complete and return ballots at their county boards of elections, CPD notes. Minnesota is one of the first states to offer in-person early voting, and voters there can begin to cast ballots on Friday, Sept. 20.
"The CPD has only one mission: to sponsor and produce general election debates that inform and educate the public. Our schedule is designed with that single mission in mind. The colleges and universities preparing to host these debates look forward to being part of an historic 2024 series of forums," the commission continued in its statement.
Following the first debate on Sep. 16 at Texas State University, the commission has announced plans to hold the second on Oct. 1 at Virginia State University and the third on Oct. 9 at The University of Utah in Salt Lake City. It plans to hold a vice presidential debate on Sept. 25 at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania.
Last week, President Joe Biden told Howard Stern on his Sirius XM show that he would be "happy" to debate former President Donald Trump, although he did not specify when. Trump and his campaign have used the moment to reemphasize their calls for earlier debates.
At rallies, before Trump speaks, the campaign directs supporters to turn their attention to the stage, where a second podium has been placed with a banner on it that says "Anytime. Anywhere. Anyplace," in reference to a previous statement from Trump regarding his willingness to face off against Biden.
Trump has previously attacked the commission, when in 2020 he claimed he would not accept any of their changes intended to enforce the rules and limit interruptions at the remaining 2020 presidential debates.
(WASHINGTON) -- President Joe Biden is facing pressure from Republicans to more forcefully speak out on the college protests unfolding nationwide in connection to the Israel-Hamas war.
The campus unrest has created a political opportunity for Republicans, typically fractured on a number of issues but united against university leaders and as staunch supporters of Israel, to hold Biden's feet to the fire as he navigates a divided Democratic caucus.
"When will the president himself, not his mouthpieces, condemn these hate-filled little Gazas?" GOP Sen. Tom Cotton said on Wednesday alongside other Republican senators at a news conference on Capitol Hill.
Biden himself last commented on the matter on April 22, when he said he condemned the "antisemitic protests" and also those who "don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians."
The White House announced on Wednesday that Biden will deliver a major speech on antisemitism next week at U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's annual Day of Remembrance Ceremony, but went to great lengths to avoid answering why he hasn't addressed what's played out at college and university campuses in recent days.
"The president is being regularly updated on what's happening," press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Wednesday during the daily briefing. "He is monitoring the situation closely. So is his team. And I would just add that no president, no president has spoken more forcefully about combating antisemitism than this president."
Jean-Pierre pointed to Biden's past comments condemning antisemitism, including his sharp denouncement of the clash between white nationalists and counterprotesters that occurred in Charlottesville in 2017, a moment he's said prompted him to run for president.
Jean-Pierre also indicated Biden has not spoken to officials from the universities, telling ABC News White House Correspondent Karen Travers she had no calls to read out or share.
Peppered with questions about what Biden thought about recent developments, including the New York Police Department clearing protesters from Columbia University and reports of violence at UCLA, Jean-Pierre deferred to local officials and reiterated Americans have the right to peacefully protest -- though she made clear occupying a building does not meet that definition.
Americans "have the right to peacefully protest, as long as it's within the law and that it's peaceful," she said. "Forcibly taking over a building is not peaceful. It's just not. Students have the right to feel safe, they have the right to learn, they have the right to do this without disruption ... They have a right to attend their commencement without feeling unsafe."
Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are ramping up their rhetoric this week on the protests and against the administration.
House Republicans on Tuesday announced a coordinated effort among committee chairs to investigate how university leadership has dealt with the protests. Notices have gone to the presidents of Yale, UCLA and the University of Michigan to appear before the Education Committee on May 23.
Senate Republicans joined in the criticism on Wednesday with a press conference of their own on the college protests, which they painted as "chaos."
The college protests had been largely peaceful for weeks, officials said, but intensified recently following arrests and clashes at some schools. Officials in New York said protesters unaffiliated with Columbia University have been escalating violence.
Pro-Palestinian students and protesters have called for their colleges to divest from funding Israeli military operations amid the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Some Jewish students have called the demonstrations antisemitic and said they fear for their safety.
Republican senators called for various responses, including that the federal government revoke student visas for overseas students involved in protests and that the Education Department investigate and possibly withhold funding to schools if they can't protect students.
"We're serious about this," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the chamber's top Republican. "We're going to take a look at what legislatively we might do to deal with this problem."
Biden was also a target of GOP remarks, some of whom suggested he was acting out of political calculus.
"Why are the university presidents and why is this president turning his head from the violent crimes going on?" said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan.
"He is catering to a handful of votes in Michigan," Marshall said. "He is totally politically driven rather than doing the right thing."
(WASHINGTON) -- A group of bipartisan members of Congress are demanding answers from Formula 1 owner Liberty Media over why a U.S.-based team backed by racing legend Mario Andretti was excluded from the most prestigious motor racing series in the world.
The FIA, which is Formula 1's governing body, initially accepted Andretti Global's push to join the grid. However, Formula One Management (FOM), the commercial rights holder of the sport, denied Andretti's planned entry in the sport, stating the team could not be competitive in time for upcoming races. F1 cited several competitive concerns, and stated that "the presence of an 11th team would not, in and of itself, provide value to the championship."
In a letter to Liberty president and CEO Greg Maffei, the 12 U.S. representatives said they have "concerns with the apparent anti-competitive actions that could prevent two American companies, Andretti Global and General Motors (GM), from producing and competing in Formula 1."
The partnership between Andretti Global and General Motor would have been the only American-built and designed engine in the history of Formula 1.
The letter goes on to accuse FOM of possibly violating American antitrust laws, saying it is "unfair and wrong to attempt to block American companies from joining Formula 1."
Rep. John James, a Republican from Michigan where General Motors is based, is leading the fight. The letter is signed by 11 other representatives -- both Democrats and Republicans -- from Texas, North Carolina, Indiana and Florida.
The lawmakers sent three questions to Liberty Media, asking how the FOM's rejection fits with the requirements of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and what the rationale is for the dismissal of the first American-owned and built team.
The letter asks, "The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlaws unreasonable restraints on market competition to produce the best outcome for the American consumer. How does FOM's denial of Andretti Global and GM, American-owned companies, square with Sherman Act requirements, since the decision will benefit incumbent European racing teams and their foreign automobile manufacturing affiliates?"
Andretti, a former Formula 1 world champion, met with members of the House on Tuesday to gain support for his team, and spoke at a press conference outside the Capitol on Wednesday to argue for his team's participation in the sport.
"We want to be able to represent the United States on a world stage in Formula One," Andretti said.
He added, "We have all the tools available, all we need is the absolute green light."
"America demands its due. If you want access to our markets, if you want access to our fans, you must grant access to our companies, you must grant access to our automotive workers, you must grant access to Americans themselves," Rep. James said.
Liberty Media declined ABC News' request for comment.
The fanbase Formula 1 has grown dramatically in the U.S., and Andretti's lobbying visit to Congress comes ahead of this weekend's Miami Grand Prix.
"Participation of all Formula 1 teams-including any American teams-should be based on merit and not just limited to protecting the current line-up of race teams. This is especially true considering Formula 1's growing presence in the United States, including three Grand Prix motoring racing events in Miami, Florida; Austin, Texas; and Las Vegas, Nevada," the representatives' letter states.
The White House has a new curator. Donna Hayashi Smith is the first Asian American to hold the post
(WASHINGTON) -- South Dakota's two-term Republican governor, Kristi Noem, has been widely promoted as a contender to be former President Donald Trump's 2024 running mate, with Trump himself saying that she was on his shortlist as of February.
"I like her a lot. I think she's great. Kristi's done a great job," he said last year.
But it appears that Noem is now on increasingly unsteady footing in Trump's eyes, in part because of a series of odd controversies and choices, multiple sources familiar with her and with Trump's deliberations told ABC News.
The negative headlines began in earnest in March, when a slickly produced video Noem released personally promoting an out-of-state dentist spurred a lawsuit claiming deceptive advertising -- and the scrutiny increased in recent days with the revelation in Noem's upcoming memoir that she chose to shoot one of her young dogs because she claimed it was "untrainable" and exhibited aggression.
(Noem's office has not commented to ABC News on the legal complaint related to the promotional video and she hasn't filed a response in court yet, records show.)
Those episodes, combined with what one of the sources familiar with the running mate talks called Noem's "over-auditioning" and questions about her judgment, appear to have seriously weakened her chances, at this point, of joining Trump's ticket.
"To a person, everyone agrees she killed her chances, pun intended," said Sean Spicer, Trump's first White House press secretary, who remains in touch with the former president's team.
"The bigger issue politically speaking is why anyone thought putting this in a book was a good idea -- editors, agent, etc.," Spicer added, referring to the anecdote about Noem's dog. "It's like a job applicant saying unprompted they stole office furniture during an interview."
Noem's office declined to comment for this story.
She has been open for months about her desire to join Trump as his running mate. In September, she said she would do it "in a heartbeat."
She was also an early Trump endorser, leaned into his no-holds-barred fighter mentality in her state and said she would back him even he were to be convicted of charges he faces in New York over 2016 hush money that prosecutors claim was paid to conceal allegations of an affair from voters. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
For a while, sources said, Noem's style and presentation helped keep her name in the conversation as a potential running mate despite some concerns about a past controversy involving how her daughter got a real estate license (Noem said she did nothing wrong and her daughter defended her "good name") as well as scrutiny of aspects of her personal life and whether she'd adopted too hard-line of a policy portfolio to help expand Trump's general election appeal beyond the GOP base.
But the talk around Noem began to turn in March after she published an unusual video on X endorsing, by name, the work she received from a Texas dentist.
That drew a lawsuit from the consumer advocacy group Travelers United under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act, accusing her of "misleading" and "deceptive" advertising and claiming that Noem had a "financial relationship" with the dental practice and did not disclose such an agreement.
And then Noem stirred wider controversy through the weekend after an excerpt of her new memoir, set to be released next week, detailed her decision to kill her 14-month-old dog, Cricket, after Cricket demonstrated an "aggressive personality," including attacking a family's group of chickens, and being "out of her mind with excitement," Noem wrote in her book.
"I hated that dog," Noem wrote, calling Cricket "untrainable."
While the decision to personally shoot the dog was criticized by animal advocates as excessive and inhumane, Noem defended her choices and responded to the backlash by touting herself as a politically incorrect politician willing to be honest and make tough choices.
She said the decision to shoot Cricket was two decades ago.
"The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down. Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did," she wrote in a Sunday statement on X. "Whether running the ranch or in politics, I have never passed on my responsibilities to anyone else to handle. Even if it's hard and painful."
State law also makes it a misdemeanor for someone to keep a dog who "chases, worries, injures, or kills any poultry or domestic animal."
But Noem's explanation appeared to do little to allay growing worries about Noem among people around Trump.
"This is bad, this is dumb, she's disqualifying herself from the race, she clearly doesn't understand President Trump if she thinks doing these things that are garnering any type of media attention, whether it's negative or positive," said one person familiar, characterizing what they'd heard from Trump's aides..
This source, like others, asked not to be quoted by name in order to be more candid and because they weren't authorized to speak on the record.
"Multiple people in the Trump campaign said she's quickly disqualified herself," this person said of Noem.
Several sources who spoke with ABC News used the latest controversy to compare Noem to Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was a rising Republican star widely regarded as ill-prepared for the national spotlight when she joined the 2008 GOP ticket as the vice presidential nominee alongside John McCain.
"It's always been under the radar, this Sarah Palin comparison, and this feels like this could be the sort of thing that continues to make that comparison stronger," one former Noem staffer said. "It's a question around -- can you be taken seriously at the national level when stuff like this is distracting from that?"
Other sources suggested that Noem was never in serious consideration to be Trump's vice president and that all the media attention around her prospects was driven by her own allies -- but that even so, her apparent eagerness for the job rubbed Trump the wrong way.
"She's over-auditioning," said a second source who has discussed the VP pick with Trump himself.
"Trump doesn't like that. He doesn't like obsequiousness. He doesn't like ubiquitousness," this person said. "And the other thing is, if you're overly auditioning for VP, no matter who you are, you're not helping Trump with his current pile of needs."
Trump has a well-known habit of keeping his circle and opinions of his allies in flux. Top advisers have been shunned, then brought back into the fold.
Defenders also pointed out, like Noem did, that her dog Cricket was a working animal, not a typical pet.
And, some of the sources who spoke with ABC News warned, advisers' worries matter little compared to the opinion of Trump himself, who is said to be reluctant to permanently expel people from his orbit.
"Anybody who thinks they know who the next vice president of the United States is going to be, if their name isn't Donald John Trump, is talking without any knowledge. Donald Trump has already said there is no perfect candidate, and his criteria as he has publicly stated is that the person is ready to go on day one and, more importantly, they help him win," said a third source familiar with the so-called "veepstakes."
The Trump campaign itself issued a similar statement for this story, with spokesperson Brian Hughes saying that "anyone claiming to know who or when President Trump will choose his VP is lying, unless the person is named Donald J. Trump."
Beyond Noem, the longer list of contenders is thought to include Sens. Katie Britt, Ala., Marco Rubio, Fla., Tim Scott, S.C., and JD Vance of Ohio; Reps. Byron Donalds, Fla., and Elise Stefanik of New York; and Govs. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and Arkansas' Sarah Sanders.
And Noem's apparent fall in contention will likely do little to blunt the jockeying to join Trump's ticket this November, particularly as the summer's national party convention nears -- with sources saying that's exactly how Trump wants it.
"Trump is very, very careful through his VP pick to not broadcast to the world, 'Herewith is the heir to MAGA,'" said the person who has discussed the issue with the former president. "He would prefer that everybody fight it out, to earn it to be the heir to the movement that he's built."
(WASHINGTON) -- The House passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act on Wednesday amid unrest on college campuses.
The bill, which was introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, passed 320-91.
The measure was led by Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., and had 15 Democratic co-sponsors. Many Republicans and Democrats who voted against the bill said it infringes on free speech.
It requires the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism when enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws. The working definition says antisemitism is in-part "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews." The definition includes denying Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the State of Israel is a racist state and drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Several Democrats took issue with the alliance's definition of antisemitism and some of the contemporary examples on antisemitism listed by the group. Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is Jewish, said he took issue with the bill because it would put the "thumb on the scale" in favor of one definition of antisemitism and could "chill" constitutionally-protected free speech. Nadler voted against the bill.
The definition of antisemitism has been fraught, especially amid the ongoing protests at colleges and universities across the country in connection with the war in Gaza. Student protesters critical of the Israeli government's military actions in Gaza have continued to face accusations of antisemitism, as politicians from across the ideological spectrum react to the widening demonstrations on college campuses.
The House's vote came as those college protests rage on. Many pro-Palestinian protesters are calling for their colleges to divest of funds from Israeli military operations, while some Jewish students on the campuses as well as elected officials have called the protests antisemitic and said they are scared for their safety.
Some Jewish students have long warned against conflating antisemitism with views critical of Israel's government and blanket portrayals of all protesters as antisemitic.
The college protests have been largely peaceful, officials say, though hundreds of students and faculty have been arrested at campuses across the country, primarily for trespassing. School administrators across the country have also said that some instances of violence have largely been connected to unaffiliated non-students.
Last week, Speaker Mike Johnson visited Columbia University, where the protests initially began, and stepped up his criticism of the college protests.
"Columbia is out of control," Johnson claimed.
During this visit, he joined some of his New York Republican colleagues in calling for Columbia University President Minouche Shafik to resign and suggested the National Guard be called to tamp down the demonstrations.
Johnson also called on President Joe Biden to speak more forcefully on the issue. Last week, Biden said he condemned "antisemitic protests" but also condemned "those who don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians."
The bill's approval comes a day after Johnson announced the House is expanding its investigation into antisemitism on college campuses and will look at federal funding specifically.
ABC News' Kiara Alfonseca contributed to this report.
(ATLANTA) -- A controversial Republican-backed bill that would criminalize state bail funds and expand the list of charges that require cash or property bail has been signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp.
"This bill carries out important bail reforms that will ensure dangerous individuals cannot walk our streets and commit further crimes," said Kemp, in statements provided by his office concerning the signing of the bill.
The bill adds roughly 30 charges that would be ineligible for release without a property or cash bond. These charges include unlawful assembly and obstruction of a law enforcement officer, and racketeering and conspiracy.
These are some of the charges that have been made against several "Cop City" protesters, who have been demonstrating against the construction of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center, which will be used for specialized training for both law enforcement and fire department service workers.
The bill would also make it a misdemeanor for "any individual, corporation, organization, charity, nonprofit corporation, or group in any jurisdiction" to submit bail for more than three people a year. Bail is the money a defendant must pay to get out of jail while they await a trial, according to legal research database Justia. It's collateral for the court to ensure that the defendant will return for the remainder of their criminal trial.
Bail funds and local advocacy groups often pay for arrestees linked to certain causes to be released from jail as soon as possible. For example, this could affect Southerners On New Ground, which bails out Black mothers and caregivers on Mother's Day or groups like the Atlanta Solidarity Fund, which bails out protesters who have been arrested during demonstrations. When Sen. Kim Jackson asked if the bill would impact her church congregation's ability to post bail as a charity, Sen. Josh McLaurin said that it would, according to the language of the legislation.
McLaurin – who is opposed to the bill – argued that this would force judges to set bail even in cases in which defendants would have otherwise been released on their own recognizance, including those who are charged with low-level or non-violent offenses. He added that it could worsen conditions in Georgia jails.
"We have to remember somebody is innocent until proven guilty when they're held pretrial," said McLaurin. "So, what that means is it is unconstitutional to use cash bail or pretrial procedure as punishment."
Republican Sen. Randy Robertson argued the legislation would make communities feel safer and address concerns about violence.
"Our county jails are not overpopulated with misdemeanants who cannot afford to make bond," he said, according to the local news outlet Georgia Recorder.
He also cited the Supreme Court case – Citizens United v. FEC – which ruled that restrictions on "independent expenditures" is a ban on speech.
(PHOENIX) -- Two Republican state senators are expected to join Democrats in Arizona on Wednesday to pass a bill to repeal the state's Civil War-era near-total abortion ban -- three weeks after the state Supreme Court ruled the law was enforceable and one week after the House passed its own legislation to roll back the restrictions that have stirred widespread controversy.
GOP state Sens. T.J. Shope and Shawnna Bolick have both indicated they will support the Democratic-led repeal effort, giving Democrats the necessary votes in the chamber.
Notably, Bolick is married to one of the state Supreme Court justices who voted to reinstate the 1864 law, which supersedes a 15-week abortion ban that was enacted in 2022 and which blocks all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant woman.
While Republicans in the state Senate could delay the repeal vote with procedural hurdles, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, has expressed confidence the repeal bill will pass Wednesday.
Hobbs has also expressed frustration that the Legislature didn't take action sooner, noting that unless the courts impose a pause on the 1864 abortion ban, there could be a monthslong gap between when it goes into effect and then its repeal kicks in.
As of Tuesday morning, the office of Attorney General Kris Mayes said the effective date for the ban has been pushed from June 8 to June 27, after the state Supreme Court rejected a motion to reconsider. If the ban is repealed by the Legislature, that move wouldn't take effect until 90 days after the legislative session ends, which must be by June 30, meaning the repeal of the 1864 law may not take effect until around Oct. 1.
Some Democrats have acknowledged "uncertainty" that at least two GOP senators will vote for repeal on Wednesday "because the Republican Party has moved to the extremes since Trump first got elected," Sen. Priya Sundareshan, a Democrat, said on a call with reporters on Tuesday.
Conservatives in the state House initially resisted efforts to fast-track legislation to undo the ban.
"Legislatures are not built for knee-jerk reactions," state House Speaker Ben Toma said during one floor session.
He has also said that "abortion is a complicated topic -- it is ethically, morally complex. I understand that we have deeply held beliefs, and I would ask everyone in this chamber to respect the fact that some of us who believe that abortion is in fact the murder of children."
Anti-abortion groups have also rallied around the state Capitol seeking to urge lawmakers to stick by the ban. Arizona voter Desiree Mayes, a Republican, told ABC News last mont that "if you really if you really believe that babies in the womb are precious and valuable, they deserve equal protection," she said, explaining she doesn't support exceptions for rape or incest.
But Democrats, locally and across the country have called out the ban -- as have some Republicans who otherwise say they oppose abortion, like Donald Trump. Three Republicans in the state House ultimately joined the Democratic minority to repeal the law.
"This is a stain on history that this ban even exists -- from a time when the age of consent was 10, from a time when women didn't have the right to vote," Arizona state Sen. Eva Burch, a Democrat, previously told ABC News' Elizabeth Schulze.
Anti-abortion groups are encouraging supporters of the near-total ban to again gather on the Capitol grounds on Wednesday to pressure Republicans to stick together and not join Democrats. Meanwhile, Arizona for Abortion Access organizers continue to gather signatures for a potential ballot initiative that would go before voters in November and would protect abortion up to the point of fetal viability, around 24 weeks into pregnancy.
House Republicans are considering proposing their own ballot measures for November to counter the pro-abortion access initiative.
"We don't deserve to win the legislature if we cannot get it right on the basic tenets of our Republican platform, which is life," said state GOP Sen. Anthony Kern.
If the repeal bill does not pass the state Senate, Democratic Sen. Sundareshan said her party would "keep fighting" by reintroducing bills or motions.
"We'll do whatever is available to us to continue to fight to repeal this ban," she told reporters on Tuesday. "And we will continue fighting to repeal all of the bans that remain on the books."
(WASHINGTON) -- Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced Wednesday she will move ahead with her attempt to oust Speaker Mike Johnson from the House's top job -- though her plan seems doomed to fail.
The Georgia Republican, who first introduced a motion to vacate the speaker's chair in March, held a high-energy news conference outside the U.S. Capitol to say she will trigger a vote on the House floor next week.
"Mike Johnson is not capable of that job," she said. "He has proven that over and over again."
Greene, joined by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, aired a litany of grievances she has with Johnson, who she described as a Democratic speaker working against former President Donald Trump's agenda. At one point, Greene donned a red "Make America Great Again" hat as she addressed reporters and denied she was defying Trump, who hosted Johnson at Mar-a-Lago last month and said he was doing a "good job."
Greene and Massie were flanked by two blown-up poster boards featuring photos of Johnson embracing House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
She criticized Johnson for working across the aisle to avoid a government shutdown, passing a FISA extension and his recent ushering of $95 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan through Congress. She called them three "betrayals" against the GOP caucus.
Johnson released a short statement in response to Greene's continued threat to try to remove him.
"This motion is wrong for the Republican Conference, wrong for the institution, and wrong for the country," Johnson said.
Greene's press conference came one day after House Democratic leadership announced that if a motion to vacate Johnson is brought to the House floor for a vote, they would vote to table the effort -- effectively saving the speaker from ouster.
The motion to vacate is unlikely to succeed as most Republicans have joined Democrats in vowing to spike it.
Greene has already passed up several opportunities to force a vote on her motion, which she said she initially filed as a warning to Johnson.
Still, Greene said she wanted lawmakers to go on record on this issue.
"I think every member of Congress needs to take that vote and let the chips fall where they may," Greene said. "And so next week, I am going to be calling this motion to vacate. Absolutely calling it. I can't wait to see Democrats go out and support a Republican speaker, and have to go home to their primaries and have to run for Congress again having supported a Republican speaker."
Greene continued, "And I also can't wait to see my Republican conference show their cards and show who we are because voters deserve it."
Asked why Greene is pledging to move forward with this in defiance of Trump, Greene told ABC News' Correspondent Elizabeth Schulze, "We have to have a Republican majority in January and under Mike Johnson's leadership we are not going to have one."
Greene's threat against Johnson has been looming for weeks. She did not specify what day next week she would force a vote. Asked by a reporter why she was not bringing it to the floor on Wednesday, Greene said she was giving members time to prepare.
Massie said they were also giving Johnson time to think and suggested, again, that he resign. Johnson flatly rejected Massie's previous call for him to step down.
Johnson has defended himself against the threat by stating that he's doing his job within the confines of the narrowest House majority in history. In a recent interview with NewsNation, Johnson said he didn't believe Greene was "proving" herself to be a "serious lawmaker" and that he didn't spend much time thinking about her.
Asked for her response to Johnson's comment, Greene said she was "not into personal attacks." Massie came to her defense, saying she "is the most serious representative up here."
Johnson was elected speaker in October after three weeks of a leaderless House following the historic removal of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. The chaotic elections to replace McCarthy included unsuccessful runs from House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer.
Greene declined to name who she would like to see hold the gavel instead of Johnson.
"Anybody that's willing to fight for our agenda," she said. "Anyone who refuses to share the power with Hakeem Jeffries."
Former U.S. President Donald Trump returns to the courtroom after a break during his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments linked to extramarital affairs at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on April 30, 2024. (EDUARDO MUNOZ/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Former President Donald Trump is back on the campaign trail, hitting two battleground states Wednesday after severe weather and his legal calendar have prevented him from holding his traditional campaign stops for weeks.
Trump will first campaign in Waukesha, Wisconsin, and then head to Freeland, Michigan, for an evening rally, packing his campaign schedule on his only regularly scheduled off day from court during the week.
It'll be the first time Trump has held a rally since the start of his criminal hush money trial in New York. The former president was scheduled to hold a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, two weeks ago but had to cancel it shortly before he was scheduled to take the stage due to incoming severe weather, and was only able to participate in a campaign fundraiser in Charlotte earlier that afternoon.
"I'm going to go into the icebox now and sit for about eight hours or nine hours," Trump complained Tuesday as he entered his third week of the trial. "I'd much rather be in Georgia. I'd much rather be in Florida. I'd much rather be in states that are in play."
Rather than campaigning in key swing states, Trump has instead been forced to make New York City his political stomping grounds, making statements outside the Manhattan courtroom and holding stops around the city in between his mandatory court appearances.
Trump stopped by a bodega in Harlem on April 16, two days into the trial, and a construction site in Manhattan last week to criticize Democratic policies in the area but also using it as a chance for reporters to shout questions at him. He has also allowed select media to capture arrivals from foreign leaders he has welcomed as he resides in Trump Tower for the duration of his court proceedings.
The choreographed stops highlight how Trump has had to balance being both a defendant and a presidential candidate.
Aside from the quick stops in New York and a couple of media interviews, Trump has had to rely on talking to reporters in the hallways of court; however, he has kept his statements relatively brief.
Judge Juan Merchan on Tuesday morning fined Trump a total of $9,000 for nine violations of the case's limited gag order, which prevents Trump from targeting potential witnesses and others involved in the case. Trump was ordered to pay the fine by the close of business Friday, and all nine of his social media posts cited by Merchan in his contempt of court ruling were removed.
Meanwhile, both President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and their respective spouses have been campaigning aggressively in key states like Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida.
Wednesday will be Trump's first time back in front of a large audience where, according to his campaign, he plans to attack Biden on the economy and crime, with Trump's legal battles at the forefront.
Wisconsin and Michigan are states Biden flipped in 2020 from Trump, and key states that remain close heading into 2024. According to 538's polling averages, Trump leads Biden in Wisconsin by close to 3 points, and just over a point in Michigan.
(WASHINGTON) -- Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Jacksonville, Florida, on Wednesday, to focus on abortion access -- the same day the state's six-week abortion ban goes into effect.
Harris' trip comes a little more than a week after President Joe Biden also traveled to the state for a campaign event in Tampa, where he blasted the pending ban, which has some narrow exceptions.
Their reelection campaign has been seeking to focus on abortion as a defining issue of the 2024 race.
During Biden's Tampa event, the president called out former President Donald Trump by name, blaming him for the spread of abortion bans across the country following the overruling of Roe v. Wade in 2022.
"He's [Trump is] wrong, the Supreme Court was wrong. It should be a constitutional right in the federal Constitution, a federal right, and it shouldn't matter where in America you live," Biden said then, adding, "This is about women's rights."
Since the decision against Roe, handed down by the court's six conservative-leaning justices, including three named by Trump, 21 states have enacted restrictions or bans on abortion access.
Biden's remarks on abortion in Florida were also notable given his complicated relationship with the issue of abortion because of his faith as a devout Catholic.
Instead, the White House and campaign have largely used Harris as their primary messenger on abortion.
She launched a "Reproductive Freedom Tour" in January and quickly traveled to Arizona in April after that state's Supreme Court ruling upholding the 160-year-old, near-total abortion ban.
Ahead of Harris' trip to Florida, the Democratic National Committee held a call with reporters and southern Democratic leaders, including Democratic Party chairs from Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.
Democrats have been underlining the Biden campaign's attacks on Trump, connecting the former president to state bans and warning that if Trump is elected again, restrictions will become more widespread.
Democrats have also emphasized how abortion rights have come out on top every time voters have been casting ballots about it.
"We have seen reproductive rights initiatives win on every ballot since Roe v. Wade was overturned because the vast majority of Americans believe that reproductive health care decisions should be made by women and their doctors, not politicians," Florida Democratic Chair Nikki Fried said. "And as President Biden has repeatedly said, Trump and extreme Republicans don't have a clue about the power of women in America, but they will soon find out."
Trump, for his part, has celebrated the end of Roe but said abortion should now be determined by each state: "At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people. You must follow your heart or in many cases, your religion or your faith," he said earlier this month.
While he insists that he wouldn't sign a national abortion ban as president if Congress passes one, he also hasn't said that he would veto such a law if needed.
"I won't have to commit to it because it'll never -- No. 1, it'll never happen, No. 2, it's about states' rights," he told Time magazine in a recent interview. "You don't want to go back into the federal government. This was all about getting out of the federal government."
Harris' trip to Florida will mark her 12th visit to the state since being sworn in as vice president, a sign of how seriously her and Biden's campaign is about trying to win back Florida this election cycle following Trump's 2016 and 2020 wins.
Evan Power, the chair of the Florida GOP, contends that abortion isn't the issue to tip the state in the opposing party's favor.
"Democrats made [abortion] the No. 1 issue that they ran in on in Florida in 2022 and we won by 19% of the votes," Power previously told ABC News.
Referring to the six-week ban, Power has said, "This is what the voters sent their legislators to Tallahassee to deliver on and they did deliver on it. So I don't think there's a backlash coming in at all."
But national and state Democrats believe that the combination of the state's six-week abortion ban and an abortion ballot measure, which would allow access to the procedure up to viability -- considered to be at about the 24th week of pregnancy -- will give the party a stronger chance of flipping the state in November given that abortion access has been seen as a winning issue for Democrats since 2022.
"Our agenda, our coalition, and the unique dynamics this election presents make it clear: President Biden is in a stronger position to win Florida this cycle than he was in 2020," Biden's campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, wrote in a memo in early April, reflecting the cautious optimism among some in her party.
(WASHINGTON) -- Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer retired from the high court in 2022 but isn't finished prodding his former conservative colleagues to abandon what he sees as an aggressive tack to the right in how they interpret the law.
"Slow down. Period," Breyer, 85, said bluntly of his message to the court's majority in a wide-ranging interview with ABC News Live PRIME.
"You're there a long time," he added, addressing the three justices nominated by former President Donald Trump. "It takes three years, four years, five years, maybe, before you begin to adjust."
Breyer has been on an all-out media blitz with the release of his 10th book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, an attack on the method of judging favored by his former colleagues that now threatens generations of established legal precedent.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to release major rulings in a historic series of cases this spring, Breyer pulls back the curtain on the embattled institution at a critical juncture and offers an optimistic assessment of its future. What follows is a selection of questions and answers lightly edited for brevity and clarity.
Some have described this as perhaps the most momentous Supreme Court term in a generation. They're taking on abortion, gun rights for domestic abusers, bump stocks, free speech on social media, presidential immunity. Any regrets you're not up there with them in the mix?
Well, of course, but, I mean, you reach a certain age, and that's the human condition.
What's the mood at the court right now?
I just had lunch with them. [The mood] has always been pleasant, and it's probably, as far as I know, still true.
Does the fact that you're still plugged in suggest you see a role for yourself behind the scenes?
Yeah, I think there is a role. So, how do I help? I write this book. That's how.
Parts of it seem like you're directly addressing the current court, the newest members of the court, and one of the messages I hear is 'slow down.'
That's right. And it's slow down, period. You're there a long time. It takes three years, four years, five years, maybe, before you begin to adjust.
Does this bunch of justices seem more eager than others you've studied?
No way to say. I say, Byron White said, that with every new judge, it's a new court. That's true.
You talk about the Dobbs case in the book. Justice Clarence Thomas, explicitly in his concurrence in Dobbs, called for the revisiting of some other decisions: same-sex marriage, contraception. Could those be at risk?
I tend to think, over time, they are less at risk than people worry about at the moment.
I take your optimism. But some might say you're a bit naïve.
I have had 40 years of experience.
Why are you so optimistic that members of this conservative majority will swing back the other way, come around and see the light, as you put it in the book, in the next three to four years?
I say there's reason for thinking they won't change, and reasons for thinking they will. They won't perhaps give up being a more conservative person than some other person. But they may modify a little. Why do I say that? Because I think they'll find [their approach] doesn't work.
You've chided the media publicly for using the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' to describe the justices. And I take your point about party politics. But why aren't these competing philosophies -- textualism versus pragmatism -- just proxies for Republican views and Democratic views?
That's a good question. Politics in the sense in which it was used when I worked for Senator Ted Kennedy: Are you a Republican? Are you a Democrat? Are you popular? Are you unpopular? How will this decision over here play into your general image? How will it over here play into more votes? – that's not there. But there are things there you see, which depending on the case, you might say 'politics,' though I don't think that's the right word. What Paul Freund, a great professor at [constitutional] law, said that politics enters the judiciary this way: No judge decides a case based on the temperature of the day, but every judge is affected by the climate of the season.
Next month marks 70 years since Brown v Board, that unanimous Supreme Court decision which overturned 'separate but equal' and outlawed racial segregation in American schools. Do you think that the vision of Brown has been fully realized?
No. But Brown did a lot of other things, like taking Jim Crow out of the law. You can't say it's nothing; it's pretty important. But there are a lot of other things, too, before people become really equal, and there's a lot of room for improvement there.
It is still striking how much time it took after the 1954 Brown decision for states to obey – for the Little Rock, Arkansas, schools to get integrated, for example.
President Eisenhower had to send troops. He sent the 101st Airborne. It took Elizabeth Eckford and the others to walk into that school. So, it was a happy day, right? Integration took place. We have the Little Rock Nine in the school. It's going ahead. Happy day. Yeah, that would be true if I could end the story here, but I can't.
It took a president. It took public opinion. It took troops. What happens if a president doesn't agree with the court decision?
Three presidents have defied the court. Andrew Jackson and the case of the Cherokee Indians in Georgia is one example ... But do you think George Bush liked the decision of the Supreme Court, deciding in favor of people in Guantanamo and against him, the president, and the secretary of the defense and so forth? No, he didn't like it, but he said, I don't like it but I'll follow it.
You've also made the case that rule of law only survives with public confidence in the institution. Why should the public trust that members of the court are abiding by its ethics code when there's no enforcement mechanism and no independent oversight?
Because the only way you can really punish a federal judge is by impeachment. They wrote that in the Constitution.
A lot of people say the court is self-policing. How can that be?
Well, let's change the Constitution. Do you want the judges to be deciding on the basis of public opinion? Well, do you? No! Of course not. Of course not.
The headlines about some of your former colleagues have been very concerning to people. The alleged trips, book deals, things like that -- accusations of misbehavior. You don't think there needs to be any independent review of that?
I didn't say that. What I said was there was only one real way of punishing the judge, and that's to impeach.
There's been a lot of talk in the past year about the political activities of justices' spouses. Does that ever become problematic, in your view?
Suppose that your wife wants to give $100 to candidate X, and you're a member of the court. Can she do it?
Can she? What does the ethics code say?
It doesn't say she can't. But it's not just what the ethics code says. I thought this was a period when women made their own decisions. I thought this was a period when they were not just doing whatever there was best for their husband.
They are independent people.
I thought so. I thought so.
Do you worry about political reaction to the court's decisions? And do you worry about violence?
There were instances of someone who was caught who had flown from the West Coast with weapons with the intent of attacking one of the justices.
Justice Kavanaugh.
Yes. So, of course, it's a concern, and it's a serious, serious problem. You don't want any of the disagreements among people, which are many and can be healthy, to turn into violence. Totally wrong, totally wrong, totally wrong.
Have you ever been threatened as a judge?
I don't know, because they [Supreme Court Police] take the letters.
So, you haven't ever felt in danger?
No.
Two years ago you faced a lot of pressure from liberals and Democrats to retire. There was even a van driving around the Supreme Court with a billboard saying, 'Breyer retire now.' Did you hear any of the calls to retire? And, were you concerned that if you had left in the midst of that, that it might appear that you were bowing to political pressure?
Both of those things somewhat. So, yeah.
Any advice for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who seems to be facing the same thing right now?
People can say what they want. They can say what they want. That's their decision to say whatever they want. I don't have to agree with it.
Finally, when you retired from the court, you said the country is an experiment in democracy that is still in progress -- that it's the "next generation, the one after that, my grandchildren and their children, they'll determine whether the experiment still works" -- and that you are optimistic. Why are you so optimistic when every day we're bombarded with reasons why this democratic experiment is on the brink?
It's not the first time. And Senator Kennedy used to say -- as the country goes like this, you know, it's wavering but survives. And Churchill said the United States always does the right thing -- after trying everything else. There is a lot to learn before you become too depressed.
(WASHINGTON) -- In a historic shift, the Drug Enforcement Administration supports recommending the reclassification of marijuana as a less dangerous drug, moving it from a Schedule 1 classification, alongside drugs like heroin and ecstasy, to a Schedule 3 drug, like ketamine, steroids and testosterone, sources told ABC News.
A source confirmed that the Department of Justice on Tuesday will send its recommendation to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, which will review it, further solidifying a process that will then take several more months.
The White House declined to comment, referring all questions to the DOJ, which then announced its decision later on Tuesday.
In a statement, department spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa said: "Today, the attorney general circulated a proposal to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Once published by the Federal Register, it will initiate a formal rulemaking process as prescribed by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act."
As Hinojosa indicated, the Office of Management and Budget will soon initiate a public comment period before the issue gets sent back to DOJ to run their own process, which will include hearings and a review by an administrative judge.
The change is far from finalized and, even if approved, the move would not legalize marijuana outright.
However, rescheduling marijuana would have sweeping ramifications for how the federal government treats the drug -- in terms of medical research, taxation and more -- as marijuana has become more widely used across American society.
A majority of states have legalized marijuana use to varying degrees, including for medicinal purposes, according to the Pew Research Center.
“We classify marijuana at the same level as heroin – and more serious than fentanyl. It makes no sense," President Joe Biden tweeted in October 2022, when he asked the Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. attorney general to begin this review process.
Since then, Biden has also pardoned thousands of people convicted for federal offenses of simple marijuana possession. If the drug is reclassified to Schedule 3, it could impact those charges at the state level.
Former President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom during his hush money trial at Manhattan criminal court, Apr. 26, 2024, in New York City. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Former President Donald Trump is playing down but not ruling out the possibility of political violence if he loses the November election.
"I don't think we're going to have that. I think we're going to win," Trump told Time magazine in a cover story published on Tuesday.
He had been asked about an earlier comment to Time that "I think we're gonna have a big victory and I think there will be no violence" -- but "what if you don't win, sir?" the Time reporter said.
"If we don't win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election," Trump went on to say.
He has previously warned of problems if things go wrong for him, writing on social media last year, before he faced any of his four criminal indictments, that "false" charges against him would bring "potential death & destruction." (He denies all wrongdoing.)
And in March, during a campaign rally, as he talked about the auto industry, Trump said that the country would face a broader "bloodbath" if he's not elected in November.
Speaking with Time for the new cover story, he alluded to his frequent, evidence-free claims of widespread election fraud and said, "I don't believe they'll be able to do the things that they did the last time. I don't think they'll be able to get away with it. And if that's the case, we're gonna win in record-setting fashion."
The former president himself faces federal charges for his actions related to attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the lead-up to a violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress gathered to certify his defeat.
Trump has since embraced and defended the people prosecuted for their alleged actions during Jan. 6. The Department of Justice said this month that nearly 1,400 people have been charged in connection with the attack, including 129 people accused of "using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer."
Approximately 800 people have pleaded guilty to their charges and another 156 people have been convicted at trial, according to the DOJ.
Trump told Time that he would "absolutely" consider pardoning every one of the people prosecuted.
"I think it's a two-tier system of justice. I think it's a very, very sad thing," he said of the rioters whom he has called "hostages." In his Time interviews, he called them "patriots."
"If somebody was evil and bad, I would look at that differently," he noted.
Elsewhere in his interviews, Trump claimed that should he win a second term, he would not attempt to defy the Constitution and try to stay in power for longer -- with a third term -- as some have warned.
"I don't really have a choice, but I would," Trump said about retiring after a second term.
He "wouldn't be in favor of a challenge" to the 22nd Amendment, which imposes term limits, he said. "I intend to serve four years and do a great job."
And as he continues to focus on a theme of retribution for his supporters and claims of persecution regarding his various legal troubles during his campaign, Trump told Time that as president he might fire U.S. attorneys who refuse his orders to prosecute someone, saying, "It would depend on the situation."
Trump suggested that as president he wouldn't "want" to prosecute the district attorneys who have brought cases against him, like Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis, but he did not give a direct answer when asked by Time if he would still order his DOJ to do so.
He previously said on the campaign trail that Bragg should be prosecuted, but he denied making that comment to Time.
"We're gonna look at a lot of things like they're looking. What they've done is a terrible thing. No, I don't want to do [prosecute them]," he told Time, later saying, "Our retribution is going to be through success of our country."
Though Trump has said he would appoint a special prosecutor to "go after" the Bidens, he told Time that "it depends what happens with the Supreme Court," as the justices consider whether to grant Trump some immunity from prosecution for conduct while in the White House.
"A president should have immunity. That includes [Joe] Biden. If they've ruled that they don't have immunity, Biden, probably nothing to do with me, he would be prosecuted," Trump told Time, claiming without evidence that Biden has broken the law.
The Biden campaign attacked Trump's latest comments.
"Not since the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault at home as they are today – because of Donald Trump," Biden campaign spokesperson James Singer said in a statement on Tuesday.
"Joe Biden believes democracy is still a sacred cause and his campaign is about the future America is going to build together," Singer said, "not one small, weak man's delusion of a dictatorship."
(JERUSALEM) -- As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated Tuesday that Israel would proceed with a military operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah "with or without a deal," the Biden administration -- which has repeatedly warned against a Rafah offensive -- appears to be holding out hope for a cease-fire agreement.
"We will enter Rafah because we have no other choice," Netanyahu said Tuesday in comments translated from Hebrew. "We will destroy the Hamas battalions there, we will complete all the objectives of the war, including the repatriation of all our hostages."
Netanyahu said there would be an evacuation of the civilian population. No timeline has been given for an operation in Rafah, where it's believed more than 1.4 million Palestinians have gathered in the wake of Israel's bombardment of the Gaza Strip.
Since the Hamas terrorist group's unprecedented attack on Israel on Oct. 7, more than 34,000 people have been killed in Gaza and at least 77,000 others injured, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health. In Israel, at least 1,700 people have been killed and 8,700 others injured by Hamas and other Palestinian militants since Oct. 7, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
"The idea that we will stop the war before achieving all of its goals is out of the question," Netanyahu said in a statement from his office Tuesday, The Associated Press reported. "We will enter Rafah and we will eliminate Hamas’ battalions there -- with or without a deal, to achieve the total victory."
President Joe Biden has previously called invading Rafah a "red line." Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in a trip to the Middle East in March, said a major military operation there would be a "mistake" that would result in more civilian deaths and worsen an already dire humanitarian crisis.
And Vice President Kamala Harris previously told ABC News in an interview that the administration was not ruling out consequences if Netanyahu went ahead with an offensive despite U.S. concerns.
National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby tried to steer clear of Netanyahu's comments Tuesday.
"I'll let the prime minister speak for himself," Kirby told reporters. "Our position on Rafah is absolutely the same. We don't want to see a major ground operation in Rafah. Certainly, we don't want to see operations that haven't factored in the safety and security of those 1.5 million folks trying to seek refuge down there. And we conveyed that to our Israeli counterparts certainly privately, absolutely publicly, and nothing's changed about that."
Meanwhile, speaking with reporters Tuesday in Jordan amid another trip to the Middle East, Blinken said he'd want to see a hostage deal come together in the "coming days."
Blinken, who will head to Israel next, seemed to echo Kirby's earlier comments Tuesday morning that the hostage deal has to become a reality because there’s simply no good alternative.
"Our focus right now is on getting a cease-fire and hostages home. That is the most urgent thing," Blinken said. "It's also, I think, what is achievable because the Israelis have put a strong proposal on the table. They've demonstrated that they're willing to compromise, and now it's on Hamas. No more delays. No more excuses. The time to act is now. So our focus is on this and we want to see in the coming days, this agreement coming together."
The United States has repeatedly called for Israel to present a plan regarding Rafah. Vedant Patel, the State Department's principal deputy spokesperson, said Tuesday the U.S. still has not seen a humanitarian plan presented by Israel and that it continues to oppose large-scale offensive operations in the Rafah region.
"We have been unambiguous about the concerns that we have when it comes to the more than a million people seeking refuge in that region," Patel said. "So any kind of operation that does not address these concerns would be a nonstarter for us."
Israel will not send a delegation to Cairo until Hamas provides an answer on the proposal Israel has offered them, an Israeli source told ABC News on Tuesday.
During a weeklong cease-fire between Hamas and Israel in late November, Hamas freed more than 100 people. In exchange, Israel released more than 200 Palestinians from Israeli prisons.
There are 129 hostages still believed to be held in Gaza, according to the Israeli Prime Minister's Office, the Israel Defense Forces and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Of the 129, at least 34 are believed to be dead, with their bodies still held by Hamas in Gaza, Israeli officials say.
ABC News' Anne Flaherty, Molly Nagle and Jordana Miller contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) -- Speaker Mike Johnson and other House Republicans are stepping up their criticism of the college protests happening nationwide in connection to the Israel-Hamas war.
Johnson, speaking on Tuesday alongside other GOP leaders at their weekly press conference, denounced the latest developments at Columbia University and called on President Joe Biden to speak more forcefully on the issue.
"Columbia is out of control," he claimed, citing overnight developments of students occupying a campus building and defying the university's order to disperse.
"They're unable to operate the university at a time when the students are prepared for their final exams," Johnson said. "It's unfair, it's unright, it's unsafe and it must stop."
Biden has tried to balance support for Israel with sympathy for Palestinians killed and suffering in Gaza, but has faced criticism from some in his own party and many Republicans on his approach to the fraught Israel-Hamas war. Last week, Biden said he condemned "antisemitic protests" but also condemned "those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians."
The speaker and some of his New York Republican colleagues visited the New York City campus last week and met with Jewish students. Johnson was heckled and booed when he delivered remarks in front of protesters calling on Columbia University President Minouche Shafik to resign and suggested the National Guard be called to tamp down the demonstrations.
The college protests have been largely peaceful, officials say, but escalated in recent days following arrests and suspensions at some schools. Pro-Palestinian students and protesters have called for their colleges to divest from funding Israeli military operations as the humanitarian crisis worsens in Gaza. Some Jewish students have called the demonstrations antisemitic and said they fear for their safety.
Congressional Republicans have seized on the protests to politically hit Democrats on the issue and show strong support for Israel. Many have called for colleges with these protests to lose federal funding.
House Republicans on Tuesday also unveiled the framework of a new congressional investigation examining how university leadership has dealt with the protests. House Committee on Education and Workforce Chair Virginia Foxx, joined by GOP leadership and committee chairs at a press conference Tuesday, said she's notified the presidents of Yale, UCLA and the University of Michigan to appear before the Education Committee on May 23.
“American universities are officially put on notice that we have come to take our universities back,” Foxx said.
Johnson said Congress has "a role" to play in this issue, but also called on Biden to do more.
"We need the president of the United States to speak to the issue and say this is wrong. What's happening on college campuses right now is wrong," Johnson said. "It is un-American. It is not who we are. The president seems unable or unwilling to do this."
The White House said on Tuesday that it believed that protesters "forcibly taking over a building on campus is absolutely the wrong approach."
"That is not an example of peaceful protest. And of course, as we've rightly noted, hate speech and hate symbols also have no place in this country," said National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, who told ABC News the administration was "watching this carefully."
Kirby previously said Biden respected the rights of demonstrators to peacefully protest, but made clear they "don't want to see anybody hurt in the process."
"The president knows that there are very strong feelings about the war in Gaza. He understands that, he respects that, and as he has said many times, we certainly respect the right of peaceful protest," Kirby said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday.
Kirby added that the administration also condemned "the antisemitism language that we've heard of late and certainly condemn all the hate speech and the threats of violence out there."
This week, the House is expected to vote on legislation titled the "Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023." The bill, backed by Republicans and some Democrats, would require the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism when applying anti-discrimination laws.
But several Democrats have taken issue with the alliance's definition of antisemitism and some of the contemporary examples on antisemitism listed by the group. Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is Jewish, said he took issue with the bill because it would put the "thumb on the scale" in favor of one definition of antisemitism and could "chill" constitutionally-protected free speech.
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries urged Johnson to consider a different bipartisan bill targeting antisemitism introduced by North Carolina Democrat Kathy Manning and New Jersey Republican Chris Smith titled the "Countering Antisemitism Act." The legislation would establish within the White House a national coordinator to counter antisemitism; require the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and National Counterterrorism Center to jointly produce an annual threat assessment of antisemitic violent extremism; and require the Department of Education to designate a senior official to advise on countering antisemitic discrimination in higher education.
"There is nothing scheduled on the floor this week that would accomplish the concrete, thoughtful strategies outlined by the Biden administration, set forth in the legislation and echoed by leading Jewish organizations across the country," Jeffries said in a letter to Johnson on Monday.
"The effort to crush antisemitism and hatred in any form is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It's an American issue that must be addressed in a bipartisan manner with the fierce urgency of now. In this spirit," Jeffries added.
ABC News' Arthur Jones and Molly Nagle contributed to this report.
Congratulations to our Valentine's Day Sweets For Your Sweet Winner! Shana Carroll of Alpena only missed the number of hearts in the jar by two, guessing 1,014, actual number was 1,012! She wins a prize package that includes gifts from Village Chocolatier; Precious Petals by Jamie; Tom's Tumblers; Northwoods Steakhouse; Modern Craft Winery, Salty Jo's Halotherapy and Saganing Eagles Landing Casino & Hotel! Thanks to everyone who registered!
.jpg)
.jpg)
