Ashley Murray, Iowa Capital Dispatch

WASHINGTON — Tucked in the “one big beautiful bill” is a proposal for tax-advantaged “Trump Accounts,” each seeded with $1,000 from the government for certain babies born in the United States over the next few years.

But financial experts and advocates for low-income children are not overly impressed.

The idea is not new and has been likened to other “baby bonds” programs aimed at reducing the growing wealth gap, like state-run trust funds in California and Connecticut. Democrats in Congress have introduced a bill to create a similar federal program.

The White House has touted the proposal in the tax and spending cut measure as “pro-family” and one that “will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth.”

At a June 9 event to promote the “Trump Accounts” featuring CEOs of top American companies, President Donald Trump promised the pilot program will make it possible for “countless American children to have a strong start in life at no cost to the American taxpayer.”

Speaking at the same event, top House Republican tax writer Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri said “every child born under this policy will have a better shot at a future. It does not matter if they live on a city block or on a county road, this will make a significant difference to their lives.”

Critics say the accounts, as proposed, would mostly benefit children born to wealthier families.

They also say the restricted-access accounts, and the one-time government contribution of $1,000, will not help in the face of cuts to food and health programs for low-income people written into the massive budget reconciliation bill, titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

How ‘Trump Accounts’ would work

The investment savings accounts would be available to U.S. citizens born between 2025 and 2028, and whose parent, or parents, if legally married, already have Social Security numbers.

Each year, from a child’s birth to age 18, family and friends, parents’ employers, churches and other private foundations, could contribute up to a combined $5,000 annually to the investment account that will track a stock index and gain interest accordingly.

Deposits into the account are taxed. Later on, withdrawals would be subject to the long-term capital gains tax — a tax on the profit made from selling an asset, or investment, that a person has held for longer than a year.

After reaching 18, the account beneficiary could access half the account’s value only for qualified expenses that include higher education, vocational training, the purchase of a first home, and costs associated with an enterprise for which the beneficiary has received a small business loan or small farm loan.

The beneficiary could access the remaining half of the account after age 25. At age 31, the account loses its status as a “Trump Account” and any remaining balance is taxed as income.

Drawbacks seen

The Urban Institute warns that the proposed structure of the account will mostly benefit wealthy families who already have the resources to grow the funds.

The bottom 80% of households, by income, only hold half as much cash on hand as the top 20% of households, according to the left-leaning think tank’s nationwide financial health data.

Additionally, because of penalties for early withdrawals, lower-income families would be incentivized to save in less restrictive accounts, according to the think tank’s May 27 analysis.

The institute recommends the government provide more contributions based on income level, beyond just the one-time $1,000, and lessen the penalties for accessing cash for catastrophic events.

A 2023 Democratic legislative proposal put forth by Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Rep. Ayana Pressley of Massachusetts aimed to create an account that would target the benefit to children from lower-income households.

Their plan suggests accounts be initially seeded with $1,000, and then children would receive up to an additional $2,000 annually based on their family’s income level.

According to Booker’s and Pressley’s plan, a child from a family of four that brings in less than $25,100 in annual income would have an estimated $46,200 in investment savings by the time they turn 18.

Under the Trump Account proposal, a child’s one-time $1,000 deposit from the government would grow to roughly $5,000 by age 18 if no other contributions were ever made, according to the Urban Institute.

Child tax credits

Brendan Duke, senior director for federal fiscal policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the GOP proposal “wasn’t particularly well thought through.”

“It’s this question of whether it makes more sense to give every family $1,000 that they can’t access in those really important years, or whether you should have expanded the child tax credit,” Duke said.

Duke criticized lawmakers’ proposals that do not expand the child tax credit to the lowest-income families in the massive GOP budget reconciliation package.

While the House version temporarily expands the credit to $2,500 per child, up from $2,000, and the Senate version permanently expands the credit by a more modest amount of $2,200, neither version expands income or refundability parameters that would benefit the poorest families.

The CBPP estimates that 17 million children are left out of the credit because of the restrictions.

Existing savings vehicles

Another criticism of the Trump Accounts is that they provide a redundant option among the several existing tax-preferred savings vehicles for Americans, including 529 education investment savings accounts, Roth and Traditional IRAs and Health Savings Accounts.

The Tax Foundation’s Alex Muresianu said the account is “a move toward complexity rather than simplification.”

“We already have plenty of savings accounts with specific purposes, and a lot of different strings attached,” said Muresianu, senior policy analyst with the right-leaning foundation.

“We don’t really need another targeted account for a specific purpose, rather than a more easily accessible account with fewer conditions.”

Economists blast calculations for ‘bombshell’ Trump tariffs as faulty while stocks plunge

by Ashley Murray, Daily Montanan
April 3, 2025

WASHINGTON — Markets and business owners in the United States and around the world reeled Thursday following President Donald Trump’s announcement of sweeping and steep tariffs that are not “reciprocal” but rather punish many countries that U.S. importers heavily rely on, experts say.

U.S. stocks plummeted, posting the worst one-day drop since June 2020, financial media reported at the closing bell Thursday. Business groups issued criticisms, experts predicted increases in household spending and even a conservative Republican senator pushed legislation that would increase congressional power over tariffs.

ALSO READ: 'Came as a surprise to me': Senators 'troubled' by one aspect of government funding bill

Trump unveiled the tariffs Wednesday during a White House Rose Garden event billed as “Liberation Day,” where he told the crowd that trading partners and allies have “torn apart our once beautiful American dream.”

His answer: Signing a “historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world. Reciprocal. That means they do it to us, and we do it to them. Very simple.”

But economists say the new U.S. tariffs Trump revealed Wednesday — illustrated on a large display table — do not match one-for-one other countries’ levies, as Trump said during his remarks.

Trump held in his hands a chart that claimed to show a list of other countries’ taxes on American imports.

But it was wrong.

The problem with the chart

Vietnam does not charge a 90% tariff on American imports, as the chart said. Rather its rate for imported U.S. goods was on average 9.4% in 2023, according to the World Trade Organization.

“The actual calculation (circulated by the White House) doesn’t factor in other countries’ tariffs,” said Brad Setser, senior fellow on global trade at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank focused on international affairs.

In other words, Setser told States Newsroom Thursday, “It’s a tariff on big bilateral trade deficits.”

And so, what does that mean? And why did the president’s chart say that the U.S. would now be charging a 46% tax on every imported good from Vietnam?

Vietnam is a small country, but a competitive exporter, particularly in broadcasting equipment, microchips and computers. And the U.S. is a big customer.

In 2023, the U.S. imported $118 billion in goods from Vietnam, while Vietnam imported about $9.6 billion in U.S. products that year, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity, a trade data project with roots at MIT.

The White House claimed on the chart that Vietnam applies a 90% tariff on the U.S. — when actually that percentage is roughly the dollar amount of the U.S. trade deficit divided by the dollar amount of how much the U.S. imports from the country. So, $120B – $10B = $110B, then divide that by $120B, and you get roughly 91%.

Trump said he would be “kind” and give trading partners “discounted” tariff rates by about half, and that’s how Vietnam landed at a 46% tax on its imports into the U.S.

“So Vietnam got hit with a huge tariff. It is literally that simple,” Setser said.

Economists and journalists almost immediately took to social media to question the glaring inaccuracy.

‘Bombshell’ tariffs

The new rates are a “bombshell” on U.S. allies and trading partners, said Jack Zhang, a professor of political science who runs the Trade War Lab at the University of Kansas.

Vietnam tried to head off Trump’s announcement in March by cutting levies on U.S. imports and signing “big purchase agreements,” Zhang said, but it didn’t work.

Historically countries have negotiated tariffs product by product in “laborious” talks, Zhang said.

“You know, ‘You reduce tariffs on your stuff, I will reduce tariffs on maybe some other stuff.’ And it nets out to be fair. This sort of lazy, back-of-the-envelope kind of calculation based on the trade deficit, it makes it really hard to negotiate in those terms,” he said.

Products from the European Union will now be taxed at 20%, Japan’s new rate is 24%, and South Korea’s 25% — all significant U.S. allies and trading partners. The EU has already threatened to retaliate if the U.S. does not come to the negotiating table.

Countries carrying a trade surplus with the U.S. — meaning they import more American goods than they sell back to the U.S. — did not escape the policy, as Trump imposed a universal 10% tariff on every nation.

The United Kingdom, which runs a trade surplus with the U.S. and in 2023 charged an average of 3.8% on imported American products, will now see a 10% tax on its items headed to U.S. buyers. Australia, whose Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the tariffs “totally unwarranted,” faces the same situation.

Trump’s informational table falsely stated that the U.K., Australia and a host of other countries — including the Heard and McDonald Islands, inhabited by penguins and seals — have been charging a 10% tax on American goods.

‘Damage to their own people’

Trump did not include Canada and Mexico in his announcement Wednesday.

But those countries are already subject to up to 25% taxes on steel, aluminum and other imports that the administration enacted in March, after declaring emergencies over illicit fentanyl and immigrants crossing the northern and southern borders.

Additionally Trump’s 25% foreign car tax launched Thursday. The neighboring countries factor big into the automobile supply chain.

“Given the prospective damage to their own people, the American administration should eventually change course, but I don’t want to give false hope. The president believes that what he is doing is best for the American economy,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Thursday in remarks that streamed on C-SPAN. Carney said he and Trump have agreed to economic and security negotiations next month.

The proposed tariffs will amount to an average $2,100 tax increase per American household, according to an analysis released Thursday by the center-right Tax Foundation, which advocates for lower taxes.

The average levy on all imports will reach 18.8%, compared to 2.5% in 2024, according to the foundation’s modeling.

Numerous trade and advocacy groups spoke out against the tariffs.

The National Association of Manufacturers urged the Trump administration to “minimize tariff costs for manufacturers that are investing and expanding in the U.S.”

The center-right Taxpayers Protection Alliance issued a scathing statement Thursday. “American consumers and taxpayers should be appalled by this executive overreach,” said its president David Williams.

States Newsroom spoke to small business owners from around the country who expressed fear about the cost of day-to-day supplies. One Arizona coffee shop owner told the news outlet that he purchased a year’s supply of disposable coffee cups from China last year in anticipation of Trump igniting a trade war.

Trump announced a 34% tax on Chinese imports Wednesday, and some experts say that will stack on top of the existing 20% tariffs Trump imposed during his first administration that were kept in place by former President Joe Biden.

Senators want more control over tariffs

A bipartisan pair of senators introduced on Thursday what they’ve titled the “American Trade Review Act of 2025,” aiming to claw back congressional power over the president’s near unilateral decision-making on U.S. tariffs.

“Inflation and high costs are a threat to the stability and prosperity of American businesses of all sizes, to our farmers and to our consumers,” Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state said on the Senate floor. She and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa are co-sponsoring the legislation.

“We live now in an interconnected world, a global economy, and advances in technology and transportation have brought that world closer and closer together. We have a global economy,” Cantwell continued.

States Newsroom sent a list of questions to the White House regarding their informational table of tariffs presented Wednesday and an opportunity to respond to criticism.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, “Trillions in historic investment commitments from industry leaders ranging from Apple to Hyundai to TSMC are indicative of how this administration is working with the private sector while implementing President Trump’s pro-growth, pro-worker America First agenda of tariffs, deregulation, tax cuts, and the unleashing of American energy.

“These America First economic policies delivered historic job, wage, and investment growth in his first term, and everyone from Main Street to Wall Street is again going to thrive as President Trump secures our nation’s economic future,” the statement continued.

TSMC, a Taiwanese mega semiconductor producer, received $6.6 billion in direct funding from the U.S., plus $5 billion in cheap loans, under Biden’s administration after he signed the CHIPS and Science Act, according to an analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations. The country announced an additional $100 billion investment in early March.

Trump announced a 32% tariff on the island nation.

Last updated 5:46 p.m., Apr. 3, 2025

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com.

by Ashley Murray, Kansas Reflector

February 26, 2025

WASHINGTON — Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, claims American taxpayers could receive a $5,000 refund from the federal government — despite no apparent support in Congress, which controls the nation’s purse strings.

Soon after Musk began floating the idea, President Donald Trump told investors at a conference in Miami on Feb. 19: “There’s even under consideration a new concept where we give 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% goes to paying down debt, because the numbers are incredible, Elon.”

ALSO READ: 'Gotta be kidding': Jim Jordan scrambles as he's confronted over Musk 'double standard'

Musk and Trump’s statements excited Trump supporters on social media. “That would be a great START,” one X user under the moniker “MAGAmom” wrote.

Others online dismissed the claim as a “bad idea” and a “steaming pile of horses–t.”

Right-wing media outlet Newsmax wrote that the proposal is “meant to incentivize the public to report government waste.”

The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, established by Trump via executive order, was born out of Trump and Musk’s campaign promise to establish a Department of Government Efficiency with the goal of slashing up to $2 trillion in federal spending — an almost certainly unattainable figure that Musk has since walked back.

Who first talked about DOGE refund checks?

Musk, a senior White House adviser and Trump’s top reelection campaign donor, posted on Feb. 18 to his social media platform X that he would “check with the president” about returning government savings directly to taxpayers.

The proposal for a “DOGE Dividend” was suggested on X by an investment firm CEO who reportedly has advised Musk’s government savings project.

James Fishback, of the firm Azoria, shared a four-page plan, calculating that Musk and Trump could divide up 20% of $2 trillion in government savings for the roughly 79 million U.S. taxpaying households, ultimately sending about $5,000 to each one. The proposal only includes “net payers of federal income tax” in 2025, meaning that lower-income Americans would not see a refund.

Can Musk and Trump even find $2 trillion in savings?

“Not even close,” Matt Dallek, presidential and political historian at George Washington University, told States Newsroom during an interview Tuesday.

“You can save some money, but relative to the overall federal budget, you’re talking about a relative pittance,” Dallek said.

The Trump administration has so far fired thousands of federal workers, most probationary employees, though the exact figure is unclear. The White House, under Musk’s guidance, slashed any positions and contracts related to diversity initiatives, largely dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and all but shut down the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau.

DOGE and the Trump administration have been met with protests and lawsuits for the temporary organization’s access to sensitive data and employment records that ultimately led to the firing of thousands of federal employees.

“These are kind of ideological targets that are not really designed to achieve real cost savings,” Dallek said.

The majority of federal spending goes to Social Security, Medicare and defense, areas that Trump and lawmakers are reluctant to touch.

Democrats contend House Republicans’ latest budget proposal also targets Medicaid, a federal-state program that provides health care for low-income Americans. Trump has said he does not want to touch Medicaid benefits.

DOGE touts questionable savings

DOGE, which is not a federal department but rather an 18-month executive office project, claims on its website to have saved the government an estimated $65 billion through “fraud detection/deletion, contract/lease cancellations, contract/lease renegotiations, asset sales, grant cancellations, workforce reductions, programmatic changes, and regulatory savings.”

The New York Times reported Tuesday that DOGE deleted five of the biggest “savings” on the original list even as the sum climbed to $65 billion.

DOGE.gov features a “wall of receipts,” or entries that must be individually viewed to reveal claims, and sometimes screenshots, of what the temporary service organization claims to have slashed.

Entries purport DOGE cancelled access to news subscriptions and other resources for federal employees, nixed numerous contracts, and terminated leases for federal office spaces around the country.

“A lot of it is smoke and mirrors,” Dallek said.

“If you’re really trying to save the government money, why would you fire 7,000 IRS employees as tax season is approaching, which, you know, is going to hinder the ability of the IRS to collect the taxes that every year go unpaid?” he added.

An NPR analysis of more than 1,100 entries on the DOGE website found that the temporary organization fell way short of its savings claims. The analysis, published Feb. 19, calculated only $2 billion in actual savings.

Twenty-one employees resigned in protest from the U.S. DOGE Service Tuesday, according to The Associated Press. The department was previously the U.S. Digital Service, which handles government technology, before Trump renamed the agency.

Can Trump cut checks without Congress?

Americans have received refund or stimulus checks in recent history.

Both the first Trump administration and former President Joe Biden signed laws that included direct payments to households as part of the COVID-19 pandemic relief efforts.

Former President George W. Bush sent rebate checks to taxpayers as part of his tax plan, passed by Congress in 2001. And, as part of legislation to address the economic slowdown in 2008, Bush sent a round of stimulus checks.

While experts argue about the nuances of whether presidents can unilaterally direct spending via executive order, the Oval Office most likely cannot send direct payments to Americans without Congress appropriating the money, as it did in these previous cases.

“Trump and Musk are doing a lot of things that are likely illegal and or unconstitutional, and they’re still doing them. But if we live in the constitutional realities of what the Constitution says and what Congress’ power is, sending checks to people is not something (the administration) can do by fiat,” Dallek said.

The White House did not respond to a request for further details about sending direct payments to taxpayers.

Last updated 6:32 p.m., Feb. 26, 2025

Kansas Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com.

by Ashley Murray, Daily Montanan

February 18, 2025

WASHINGTON — Temporary special government employees working at the behest of the U.S. DOGE Service, under President Donald Trump and billionaire campaign donor Elon Musk, can continue accessing data across federal agencies, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ordered Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote that the more than a dozen state attorneys general who sued Musk, Trump and DOGE Service, did not adequately show they will “suffer imminent, irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order,” though Chutkan noted later in the filing that the plaintiffs “raise a colorable Appointments Clause claim with serious implications.”

ALSO READ: 'Gotta be kidding': Jim Jordan scrambles as he's confronted over Musk 'double standard'

“Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight. In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs. The current record does not meet that standard,” Chutkan said.

Chutkan’s is the latest order in a string of lawsuits against the Trump administration — though others have blocked or limited the administration’s actions. Chutkan was named to the bench by former President Barack Obama.

Attorneys general argue Musk has ‘unchecked power’

Fourteen Democratic state attorneys general in a Feb. 13 complaint accused Musk, Trump, the U.S. DOGE Service and its associated temporary organization, of violating the Constitution when handing Musk “virtually unchecked power across the Executive branch.”

The plaintiffs later continued, “Although he occupies a role President Trump — not Congress — created and even though the Senate has never voted to confirm him, Mr. Musk has and continues to assert the powers of an ‘Officer of the United States’ under the Appointments Clause. Indeed, in many cases, he has exceeded the lawful authority of even a principal officer, or of the President himself,” according to the complaint led by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.

State attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, also joined the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is among scores of legal actions challenging the Trump administration’s firings, freezing of federal funds and numerous executive orders. A tracker published by the online forum Just Security is following 75 lawsuits since Trump’s inauguration.

Thousands of government workers have received termination notices following DOGE’s access to files across numerous federal agencies.

DOGE is shorthand for the Department of Government Efficiency, which is not actually a department. The temporary project was established by Trump via executive order with the purpose of modernizing government technology.

Trump and Musk promoted the idea of DOGE along the campaign trail, with Musk promising to cut $2 trillion in federal spending.

Musk, a prolific poster on his social media platform X, often takes credit for slashing government contracts and reducing the federal workforce.

“We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” Musk posted X Feb. 3 after his DOGE representatives forced their way into computer systems at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

On Feb. 11, Trump and Musk spoke to reporters in the Oval Office for a half hour about DOGE.

“Could you mention some of the things your team has found?” Trump asked Musk.

Musk is ‘not an employee’

But following a hearing Monday, the Trump administration submitted a filing to Judge Chutkan stating that Musk “is not an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service or U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization.”

Joshua Fisher, director of the Office of the Administration, testified in the filing that Musk is a special government employee and a senior adviser to the president.

“Like other senior White House Advisors, Mr. Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself. Mr. Musk can only advise the President and communicate the President’s directives,” Fisher said.

Chutkan said in her order that “Even Defendants concede there is no apparent “source of legal authority granting [DOGE] the power” to take some of the actions challenged here … Accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Defendants’ actions are thus precisely the ‘Executive abuses’ that the Appointments Clause seeks to prevent … But even a strong merits argument cannot secure a temporary restraining order at this juncture.”

Musk was the top campaign donor to Trump and Republicans during the 2024 election cycle at $288 million.

Musk owns Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, Neurolink and X, formerly known as Twitter, and is worth $379 billion, according to Bloomberg’s billionaire index cited in court filings.

As of October, Musk had more than $15 billion in U.S. government contracts across nine Cabinet departments and three independent agencies, according to a New York Times analysis.

Last updated 3:22 p.m., Feb. 18, 2025

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com.

WASHINGTON — Acting Secretary of Defense Robert Salesses said the deployment of additional active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border “is just the beginning” — even as border crossings remain at their lowest point in months.

The Pentagon will immediately send 1,500 ground personnel to monitor the southwest border and crew additional helicopters that are also being sent, he said late Wednesday.

Troops are also expected to build temporary and permanent barriers along the border, and provide military airlifts to the Department of Homeland Security to deport up to 5,000 immigrants who lack specific legal authorization from the San Diego, California, and El Paso, Texas, areas, he said.

ALSO READ: Inside the parade of right-wing world leaders flocking to D.C. for Trump's inauguration

President Donald Trump declared an emergency at the border Monday, among issuing several other immigration-related executive orders.

Salesses said the shift means a 60% increase in active-duty ground forces at the border. Former President Joe Biden had already sent troops to the border in 2023 as crossings at that time surged. About 2,500 troops are already there.

Encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border have been on a steady downward trend since March 2024 and remain at the lowest levels since 2022, according to data tracked by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The agency’s term “encounters” encompasses people who attempt to cross between official ports of entry, as well as families, individuals and unaccompanied children who arrive at official entry points seeking humanitarian protection.

The U.S. military, by law, is prohibited from being used as a police force within the United States, so troops’ duties at the border will largely be intelligence gathering and logistics, including transportation.

Reporting back on Insurrection Act

Among his executive actions Monday, Trump ordered leadership at the Pentagon and Homeland Security to report back in 90 days on whether Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that allows the military to begin domestic law enforcement.

U.S. Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM, will be in charge of duties at the border. The command, which has few permanently assigned forces, leads missions that focus on homeland defense and civil support when directed by the president or secretary of defense. The U.S. Transportation Command and the National Guard Bureau will assist.

“President Trump directed action from the Department of Defense on securing our nation’s borders and made clear he expects immediate results,” Salesses said in a statement. “That is exactly what our military is doing under his leadership.”

The Pentagon referred all questions to Northern Command. Specific military units will be announced “as soon as deployment orders have been released,” USNORTHCOM said in a statement Thursday. The command did not answer a question about where troops will be stationed.

WASHINGTON — Barring a few exceptions, Senate Republicans on Tuesday largely deflected or altogether avoided questions about President Donald Trump’s broad clemency for over 1,500 defendants who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — including many who beat police officers, smashed windows and trashed offices as lawmakers hid in designated safe areas.

Just hours into his second term Monday, Trump commuted the sentences of 14 felons, including leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.

The president granted a “full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” He also dismissed any pending indictments.

The pardons did not come as a surprise. As Senate Republicans were cheering for Trump on his march to electoral victory, the former and now current president exalted the “hostages” and “patriots” who injured more than 140 law enforcement officers and caused north of $2.8 million in damage to the Capitol, according to the Department of Justice.

Oath Keepers founder and Jan. 6 ringleader Stewart Rhodes told reporters Tuesday that it was “a good day for America.” Rhodes, who was released from federal prison in Cumberland, Maryland, faced an 18-year sentence for seditious conspiracy, among other crimes.

But Trump allies had earlier raised questions about releasing some defendants, including Vice President J.D. Vance, who told Fox News on Jan. 12 that “If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.”

As of early January the government had charged just over 1,580 people for crimes related to the riot, 608 of whom were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement. Nearly a third of those charged with assaulting officers used a dangerous or deadly weapon, according to the Justice Department.

Investigations uncovered that weapons brought onto Capitol grounds included firearms, tasers, chemical sprays; edged weapons, including a sword, axes, hatchets, and knives; and makeshift weapons, including broken office furniture, fencing, bike racks, stolen riot shields, baseball bats, hockey sticks, flagpoles, PVC piping and reinforced knuckle gloves.

States Newsroom asked over 20 Republican senators if they are comfortable with Trump’s clemency orders, and followed up with some of the lawmakers who were willing to speak.

Trump ‘keeps his campaign promises’

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said he wasn’t comfortable with “any that involved an assault on a police officer.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski told a group of journalists that she was “disappointed.”

“I do fear the message that is sent to these great men and women that stood by us,” the Alaska Republican said as she gestured toward the Capitol Police officers posted outside the Senate Republicans’ weekly luncheon.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said there’s a “distinction to be made between providing clemency for individuals who may have been caught up in the crowd that day and did not commit any violent act, versus those who assaulted police officers with their fists, with flag poles, with pepper spray, and destroyed property, broke into the Capitol by breaking windows.”

“I do not believe those individuals warrant clemency,” she said. Collins also released a written statement.

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who was photographed raising his fist in solidarity with Trump supporters as he exited the Capitol on Jan. 6, said “If you’re asking me if it’s what I would have done, what I’ve said is, is that for folks who committed violence, I wouldn’t commute their sentence or pardon.”

Hawley, who can be seen on security video running for safety during the attack, said the pardons send a signal that Trump “keeps his campaign promises.”

Biden pardons

When States Newsroom asked Sen. Deb Fischer if she was comfortable with the broad pardons, the Nebraska Republican responded, “I’m looking forward to getting some great opportunities and getting good things done.”

In response to a follow-up question on whether she condoned political violence, Fischer, who was on her way into Majority Whip John Barrasso’s office, said, “Ma’am, no one would ever condone political violence.”

As Sen. Markwayne Mullin walked by an entrance to the Senate chamber he greeted and shook the hands of Capitol Police officers posted at the doors.

The Oklahoma Republican refused to talk specifically about the Jan. 6 pardons, saying he didn’t get “near this many questions” about pardons issued by former President Joe Biden in his final hours in office.

“Here’s my thing on pardons, I’m not any more comfortable with Biden releasing and pardoning his whole family too,” Mullin said. “When you all want to cover both, come talk to me.”

States Newsroom reported Monday Biden preemptively pardoned lawmakers who served on the congressional committee to investigate the Capitol attack, as well as police officers who testified before the panel.

He also preemptively pardoned former administration officials who’ve been the target of death threats, as well as five of his family members — roughly a month-and-a-half after he pardoned his son, Hunter. Major news outlets published numerous articles covering Biden’s pardons.

Mullin walked away from a follow-up question highlighting violent acts committed by those who received Trump’s clemency.

Collins similarly said the press “ought to be paying attention” to Biden’s pardons as well, especially the commutation of indigenous activist Leonard Peltier.

Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley, the most senior member of the Senate and the body’s president pro tempore, said, “Hey, everybody’s asked me about J6. None of you guys are asking about the Biden pardons.”

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said “Congress doesn’t have a role to play in pardons” and walked away from further questions on the topic.

No response at all

Many GOP senators did not respond to clearly shouted, and many times repeated, questions from journalists Tuesday afternoon about the pardons.

They included Mike Crapo of Idaho, Barrasso of Wyoming, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, John Curtis of Utah, Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott of South Carolina, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Joni Ernst of Iowa.

Blackburn and Curtis specifically said they don’t speak to reporters in the hallways of Congress.

Some GOP senators said they hadn’t yet seen Trump’s Monday night order.

“I haven’t looked at it yet,” said Sen. Rick Scott of Florida.

When States Newsroom summarized the 334-word proclamation and underscored that it was highly publicized by major news outlets, Scott replied “I haven’t looked at the executive order yet.”

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said: “I don’t have anything for you.”

“You don’t have anything about people who came here with weapons and beat police officers?” States Newsroom pressed as Kennedy walked away.

Murkowski’s fellow Alaska senator, Dan Sullivan, stopped to speak to reporters about the “grand slam home run” executive order from Trump that expands energy development in his state, but he would not comment on the president’s clemency for Jan. 6 defendants.

“I need to read the order first,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s office did not respond to requests for comment. The South Dakota Republican briefly told reporters outside of a committee room, “We’re not looking backwards, we’re looking forward.”

States Newsroom reached out to all members of Senate and House Republican leadership for comment, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, but did not receive any response.

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Friday questioned why they should intervene to block a law forcing the sale of TikTok in nine days, saying the short-form video platform’s Chinese parent company does not enjoy First Amendment rights.

Lawyers for TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, and a group of the platform’s users faced sharp questions from justices on both sides of the court’s ideological split about how any party other than ByteDance would have its rights restricted.

Under the bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden, ByteDance must divest TikTok by Jan. 19 or the wildly popular platform will be banned from app stores in the United States.

ByteDance holds the intellectual property rights to the algorithm that powers what content TikTok users see. If severed from the parent company, as required by the law, TikTok would lose access to the proprietary algorithm, which the company argued was a form of speech.

But the justices suggested only ByteDance — which, as a foreign company, they said, does not have the presumption of First Amendment rights — would be the only party directly harmed by the law.

The law targets ownership and potential control of the platform, including access to user data, by the Chinese Communist Party, Chief Justice John Roberts said. The law designates the Chinese government a foreign adversary.

“Congress doesn’t care about what’s on TikTok, they don’t care about the expression,” Roberts, a member of the court’s conservative majority, said. “That’s shown by the remedy: They’re not saying, ‘TikTok has to stop.’ They’re saying, ‘The Chinese have to stop controlling TikTok,’ so it’s not a direct burden on the expression at all.”

Lawmakers when the law was debated said the platform was dangerous because ByteDance is subject to Chinese national security laws that can compel companies to hand over data at any time.

“Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” Roberts said.

Justice Elena Kagan, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, also noted the law would mainly affect ByteDance, not its U.S.-based subsidiary. Separated from its Chinese parent company, TikTok would be free to pursue its own algorithm to compete with Meta’s Instagram and other video-based social media, she said.

“The statute only says to this foreign company, ‘Divest or else,’ and leaves TikTok with the ability to do what every other actor in the United States can do, which is go find the best available algorithm,” Kagan said.

National security vs. free speech

Noel Francisco, who represented TikTok and ByteDance, argued that the law’s true aim was to stop “manipulation of content” by the Chinese government, which he said amounted to censorship in violation of the Constitution.

“The government’s real target, rather, is the speech itself, it’s fear that Americans, even if fully informed, could be persuaded by Chinese misinformation,” Francisco said. “That, however, is a decision that the First Amendment leaves to the people.”

The law burdens TikTok’s speech, Francisco said, “shutting down one of the largest speech platforms in America” that boasts about 170 million U.S. users.

He asked the court to analyze if that burden on speech was “content-based,” which he reasoned it was, noting the government’s national security argument speculated that TikTok could be used to misinform Americans.

The singling out of TikTok presents a particular problem, he said.

The law “says there’s one speaker we’re particularly concerned about, and we’re going to hammer home on that one speaker,” he said. “One of the reasons they’re targeting that speaker is because they’re worried about the future content on that platform — that it could, in the future, somehow be critical of the United States or undermine democracy.”

Jeffrey Fisher, an attorney for TikTok creators, said a law to prevent content manipulation — the government’s argument that TikTok users were vulnerable to being force-fed content approved by China — was not permitted by the First Amendment.

“That argument is that our national security is implicated if the content on TikTok is anti-democracy, undermines trust in our leaders — they use various phrases like that in their brief,” Fisher said. “That is an impermissible government interest that taints the entire act. … Once you have an impermissible motive like that, the law is unconstitutional.”

TikTok lawyers react

Lawyers for TikTok and several creators expressed confidence in their case following the arguments.

“We thought that the argument went very well, the justices are extremely engaged. They fully understand the importance of this case, not only for the American citizens of this country, but for First Amendment law, generally, the rights of everybody,” Francisco said at the National Press Club Friday afternoon.

Francisco also defended the ownership makeup of ByteDance as a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands that “is not owned by China” — though 21% is owned by a Chinese national who lives in Singapore, he said. Francisco also said TikTok’s source code for the algorithm is stored on servers in Virginia.

Three TikTok users shared stories about the livelihoods they’ve built through their presence on the platform.

Chloe Joy Sexton of Memphis, Tennessee, said TikTok allowed her to jump-start her baking business after a job loss and difficult family circumstances.

“I have now shipped thousands of cookies all over the world and even published a cookbook. As a small business without a lot of capital, I rely almost entirely on TikTok to market my products. To say TikTok changed my life is an understatement,” Sexton said.

JOHNSTOWN, Pa. — Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance campaigned Saturday in the key battleground of Pennsylvania, where early mail-in voting is already underway as just 25 days remain in the heated 2024 race that will be decided by a handful of states.

Former President Donald Trump’s running mate rallied a crowd of a few hundred at a sprawling riverside manufacturing facility in Johnstown, adhering to the ticket’s main themes of immigration and the economy.

During a question-and-answer session with the press following his prepared remarks, States Newsroom asked Vance if he will commit to the peaceful transfer of power no matter the winner in November.

The coming presidential election is the first since a mob of Trump supporters violently breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, delaying Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election results. More than 1,500 defendants have been charged with crimes associated with the attack on the Capitol, during which 140 police officers were assaulted.

“Yes, of course,” Vance replied. “Look, this is very simple. Yes, there was a riot at the Capitol on January 6, but there was still a peaceful transfer of power in this country, and that is always going to happen.”

Vance, Ohio’s junior U.S. senator, in his speech painted Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, as “a tax-and-spend San Francisco liberal who wants to open our borders and destroy American manufacturing.”

“Are we going to give Kamala Harris a promotion to president of the United States? Hell no. We are going to tell Harris ‘You are fired,’ and we are voting Donald J. Trump to be our next president,” Vance said to cheers.

Vance spoke from a stage inside JWF Industries, a local plant that manufactures transportation, energy and defense equipment and vehicles.

Four military tactical utility vehicles framed the stage, where roughly 80 spectators lined the stage behind and to each side of Vance. A couple hundred people sat below the stage, with several empty rows behind them and an empty section to the left.

New poll numbers

Both campaigns and their surrogates are blanketing seven must-win swing states, as the presidential contest remains incredibly tight.

Trump holds an advantage in Arizona, while Harris has a slight lead in Pennsylvania, according to the latest poll results for the key battleground states released Saturday morning by The New York Times/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College.

Vance urged the crowd to check their voter registration status and talk to family and friends about going to the polls.

“It’s the only way that we’re going to make Donald Trump the next president, so let’s get out there and vote, my friends,” he said.

Vance spent the majority of his remarks faulting Harris and President Joe Biden for economic suffering, including inflation and credit card debt delinquency.

A consumer price index report released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed inflation is at its lowest since February 2021.

Vance also attacked Harris for participating in “softball interviews,” citing her recent appearances on podcasts, as well as daytime and late-night TV.

Vance took credit for the Trump campaign ad that features a clip from Harris’ interview on “The View” in which she declined to distance herself from decisions of the Biden presidency.

“The problem with a softball interview is that you still have to be able to hit a softball,” Vance said.

In addition to appearances this week on the podcast “Call Her Daddy” and “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” as well as a town hall for Univision, Harris also sat for an interview with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” on Monday. Trump backed out of his own promised appearance on “60 Minutes.”

Jan. 6 protesters ‘knuckleheads’

Vance implied accusations of voter fraud during his speech, telling the crowd that “you have to make the margins so big in Pennsylvania that it doesn’t matter what shenanigans Democrats pull at the last minute.”

“We will never have the fake media or the Democrats telling the truth. We do have our own voices, and our own networks, our family and friends. That is the people power that is going to make Donald Trump the next president,” Vance said.

During the reporter Q and A, the crowd jeered when a student journalist from a Pittsburgh university asked if Vance condemned the Jan. 6 violence.

Vance defended Trump’s actions on that day, saying the former president encouraged the crowd to protest “peacefully.”

“And the fact that a few knuckleheads went off and did something they shouldn’t do, that’s not on him. That’s on them,” Vance said to cheers.

Vance chafed at journalists asking more than once about Trump’s refusal to accept that Biden won the 2020 race. The former president continues to repeat the falsehood that he won. Trump challenged election results across dozens of lawsuits in multiple states following the 2020 election and lost them all.

“What Kamala Harris and the media are doing is trying to tell us that we should hear more about what happened four years ago than about her failure in governance,” Vance said. “I think that on November the 5th, we are going to reject it.”

Other questions from the press focused on western Pennsylvania, veterans’ benefits and Project 2025, the 900-page “mandate” for the next government, produced by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Vance said the conservative project has “no relation” to the Trump campaign. A CNN investigation in June found at least 140 several former Trump administration officials were involved in the project.

Vance spoke for 23 minutes and addressed reporter questions for just under the same amount of time.

Georgia Recorder is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor John McCosh for questions: info@georgiarecorder.com. Follow Georgia Recorder on Facebook and X.

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump and other Republicans complained Wednesday that the previous night’s ABC News presidential debate was unfair toward the GOP nominee.

But the campaigns of Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, also engaged via the news media about the possibility of a second debate before the Nov. 5 election.

Trump and his allies said the ABC News moderators, “World News Tonight” anchor and managing editor David Muir and “World News Tonight” Sunday anchor and ABC News Live “Prime” anchor Linsey Davis, sided with Harris by fact-checking a few of Trump’s more outlandish claims.

“It was three to one,” Trump said Wednesday in a call to Fox News’ morning program “Fox & Friends,” referring to Harris and the two moderators. “It was a rigged deal, as I assumed it would be, because when you looked at the fact that they were correcting everything and not correcting with her.”

At the debate Tuesday night, Davis contested Trump’s claim that a former Democratic governor floated the possibility of allowing abortion after a baby is born.

“There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born,” Davis said.

Muir also challenged Trump when the former president repeated baseless rumors that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing and eating residents’ pets, saying Springfield’s city manager had debunked the claim.

“Terribly moderated debate,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Fox News’ Sean Hannity immediately after the debate. “It was three against one.”

Representatives for ABC News did not immediately return an email seeking comment on the criticism.

Polling on debate

The perception that ABC’s moderators were partial to Harris was not widely shared outside of Republicans.

In a YouGov survey of more than 3,000 adults, 40% said the moderators were fair and unbiased. The second-most common answer was “don’t know,” with 29%, and 27% of respondents said the moderators were biased toward Harris.

A plurality of independents, 32%, and 69% of Democrats also said the moderators were fair. Just more than half of Republicans said Muir and Davis were unfair to Trump.

On his social media platform Truth Social overnight, Trump touted his debate performance and posted several screenshots of right-wing news outlet polls stating he had won the matchup.

“Comrade Kamala Harris is going around wanting another Debate because she lost so badly – Just look at the Polls! It’s true with prizefighters, when they lose a fight, they immediately want another. MAGA2024,” Trump wrote in response to the Harris campaign suggesting a second meeting.

Trump defended his comments about Haitian migrants in Ohio. The false claims have been circulating among right-wing circles, and amplified on social media Monday by Trump’s running mate, U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio.

He posted police audio published by the conservative news outlet The Federalist alleging migrants were seen carrying geese in late August. Trump also republished a video, fact-checked by the Canton, Ohio, newspaper The Repository, of a woman, with no known connection to the Caribbean nation, in Canton, who on Aug. 16 was arrested and charged with animal cruelty for allegedly killing and eating a cat.

Prior to the debate, Trump posted an AI-generated image of him surrounded by and hugging cats and water fowl on his private jet, as well as an army of cats wearing MAGA hats and carrying semi-automatic rifles.

Another debate?

During a Sept. 11 memorial event in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Trump reportedly said he was open to two more debates, hosted by NBC News and Fox News.

The NBC event would be Sept. 25, but Harris has not agreed to it, preferring a date in October.

Fox executives on Tuesday night renewed the network’s offer to host another debate in a battleground state in October.

Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in an email the former president’s Fox News comment was a reference to a town hall with commentator Sean Hannity earlier this month.

“It was supposed to be on September 4,” Leavitt wrote. “Kamala didn’t show up so it turned into a town hall with Sean Hannity.”

The Harris campaign has said the vice president wants another debate with Trump in October. Campaign Chair Jen O’Malley Dillon repeated that in a statement late Tuesday.

“Under the bright lights, the American people got to see the choice they will face this fall at the ballot box: between moving forward with Kamala Harris, or going backwards with Trump,” O’Malley Dillon wrote. “That’s what they saw tonight and what they should see at a second debate in October. Vice President Harris is ready for a second debate. Is Donald Trump?”

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on Facebook and X.

WASHINGTON — Exactly two months out from the presidential election, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan plans to move ahead with the case accusing former President Donald Trump of subverting the 2020 presidential election results, telling Trump’s attorneys that she is “not concerned with the electoral schedule.”

Chutkan released a timeline for the case late Thursday afternoon setting several deadlines for evidence, briefs and replies for the weeks prior to November’s election, and ultimately stretching beyond Election Day.

While it had been evident for some time that the Republican presidential nominee likely would not face a trial before Nov. 5 on election interference charges, Chutkan’s calendar made it certain.

Trump did not appear in federal court for Thursday morning’s hearing in Washington, D.C., but his lawyers pleaded not guilty on his behalf to the four charges that remained unchanged in U.S. special counsel Jack Smith’s new indictment, filed last week.

The case had been in a holding pattern for eight months as Trump appealed his claim of presidential immunity all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. prosecutors say they are ready to restart the case in the coming weeks, while Trump’s team has argued for more time to review evidence and dismiss the superseding indictment.

The Supreme Court returned Trump’s case to the trial court after ruling that former presidents are immune from criminal charges for official “core constitutional” acts while in office and hold at least presumptive immunity for “outer perimeter” activities, but not for personal actions.

This gave Chutkan, an Obama administration appointee, the major task of parsing Smith’s indictment, deciding which allegations against Trump fall under the umbrella of official acts and which relate to actions taken in a personal capacity.

Chutkan set the following deadlines on the pre-trial calendar:

The government must complete all mandatory evidentiary disclosures by Sept. 10, with other disclosures ongoing afterward.Trump’s reply briefs to certain evidence matters are due Sept. 19.The government’s opening brief on presidential immunity is due Sept. 26, and the Trump legal team’s reply is due on Oct. 17. The government’s opposition is thereafter due on Oct. 29.Trump is also scheduled to provide a supplement to his original motion to dismiss based on statutory grounds by Oct. 3, and the government must reply by Oct. 17.Trump’s request to file a motion based on his argument that Smith was illegally appointed to his special prosecutor position is due on Oct. 24, with the government’s reply due on Oct. 31. The due date for Trump’s opposition to the government’s reply is Nov. 7, stretching the pre-trial calendar beyond the presidential election.

Chutkan skeptical

Chutkan did not issue any decisions on immunity at the Thursday hearing but rather spent significant time grilling Trump’s attorney John Lauro on why he believes it is “unseemly” for Smith’s office to lay out its case this month in an opening brief. Thomas Windom, a federal prosecutor in Smith’s office, said the government would be ready to file the brief by the end of September.

Lauro argued that Smith wanting to file “at breakneck speed” is “incredibly unfair that they are able to put in the public record (evidence) at this sensitive time in our nation’s history.”

“I understand there’s an election impending,” Chutkan snapped back, reminding him that it “is not relevant here.”

“Three weeks is not exactly breakneck speed,” Chutkan added.

Lauro argues that Chutkan should examine parts of the indictment that accuse Trump of pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to accept false slates of electors leading up to Pence’s ceremonial role in certifying the election results on Jan. 6, 2021.

“The problem with that issue is if in fact the communications are immune, then the entire indictment fails,” Lauro argued.

“I’m not sure that’s my reading of the case,” Chutkan replied.

The government maintains that all actions and communications by Trump described in the new indictment were “private in nature,” Windom argued.

Chutkan also spent time during the roughly 75-minute hearing questioning Lauro on the Trump legal team’s numerous plans to request the case’s dismissal. One anticipated plan is to try its successful play in Florida, where a Trump-appointed federal judge tossed his classified documents case after Trump argued Smith was illegally appointed as special counsel.

Chutkan said she will allow the defense to file that motion but warned that attorneys must provide convincing arguments on why “binding precedent doesn’t hold” for the time-tested position of special prosecutor.

New indictment, same charges

Trump is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights for his alleged role in conspiring to create false electors from seven states and spreading knowingly false information that whipped his supporters into a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

A federal grand jury handed up a revised indictment Aug. 27 in an effort to tailor the charges to the Supreme Court’s July 1 immunity ruling. The fresh indictment omitted any references to Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Justice Department officials to meddle in state election results.

But the document added emphasis on Trump’s personal use of social media outside of his actions as president, and said he and several co-conspirators schemed outside of his official duties. The new indictment also stressed Trump’s pressure on Pence to accept the fake electors in his role outside of the executive branch as president of the Senate.

If Trump wins the Oval Office in November, he would have the power to hinder or altogether shut down the Department of Justice’s election interference case against him.

If he loses to Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, the case is sure to be set back by further delays, as the Trump team plans numerous challenges and will almost certainly appeal — likely to the Supreme Court again — Chutkan’s decisions on which allegations against Trump are or are not subject to immunity.

According to Friday’s joint filing in which each side laid out plans for the case going forward, Trump’s team also warned they will challenge that Trump’s tweets and communication about the 2020 presidential results should be considered all official acts.

Additionally, Trump plans to file a motion to dismiss the case based on the Supreme Court’s June ruling that a Jan. 6 rioter could not be charged with obstructing an official proceeding — a charge that Trump also faces.

NC Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. NC Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Rob Schofield for questions: info@ncnewsline.com. Follow NC Newsline on Facebook and X.

WASHINGTON — Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to announce economic policy proposals aimed at helping small businesses during a campaign speech Wednesday in New Hampshire.

The Democratic presidential candidate will stump in Portsmouth for expanding the tax deduction to $50,000 on business start-up costs, up from $5,000, a campaign official said on background Tuesday. Harris will also propose a standard deduction for businesses as a way to simplify tax filing for entrepreneurs.

Congress writes the nation’s tax laws, so any changes will hinge on which party wins control of the House and Senate in November. Many provisions enacted under the 2017 Trump-era tax law are set to expire at the end of 2025, teeing up for the next Congress the major task of reworking the tax code.

The announcement comes as part of Harris’ pitch for what she calls an “opportunity economy” that would include an expanded child tax credit — up to $6,000 — for new parents, $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers, and tools to combat “price gouging” by big businesses, whom Harris blames for high grocery prices, she told CNN’s Dana Bash on Thursday.

Middle-class message

Harris, whose running mate is Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, has in recent weeks largely homed in on helping the middle class.

The former California attorney general and U.S. senator is also expected to announce a host of other proposals Wednesday to incentivize the creation of more small businesses — with her goal of 25 million new business applications under her administration, if elected.

Among the proposals are easing licensing to allow businesses to expand across state lines and incentivizing state and local governments to “cut red tape” and reduce regulations. Harris will also pitch granting more federal contracts to small businesses and launching a fund that would allow community banks to pay interest costs for businesses expanding in regions that see little investment.

Harris’ stop in New Hampshire is one of at least three presidential campaign events this week. On Thursday she will return to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where she and President Joe Biden campaigned on their support for organized labor during Monday’s Labor Day holiday.

The Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, is scheduled to attend a town hall in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with Fox News host Sean Hannity on Wednesday and a Saturday campaign rally in Mosinee, Wisconsin.

Trump attacked Biden and Harris on his online platform Truth Social Monday, blaming the administration for high prices.

Trump wrote in his signature mix of upper and lowercase letters that under Harris, whom he refers to as “comrade,” “all Americans are suffering during this Holiday weekend – High Gas Prices, Transportation Costs are up, and Grocery Prices are through the roof. We can’t keep living under this weak and failed ‘Leadership.’”

U.S. presidents do not set transportation or grocery prices.

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on Facebook and X.

MILWAUKEE — A top Trump campaign official said Thursday that the 2024 presidential race will not be over until Inauguration Day, rather than after Election Day on Nov. 5 — when voters across the nation go to the polls to cast their ballots and a result normally is projected.

The assertion from Chris LaCivita at a Politico event is notable given former President Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to President Joe Biden, and the ensuing violent attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021.

It is also significant given that the U.S. Department of Justice alleges after Election Day in 2020, Trump co-conspired with lawyers and election officials in seven states to produce false slates of electors. According to the indictment, those slates were intended to be delivered to Vice President Mike Pence during the routine certification in a joint session of Congress in early January following presidential elections.

“It’s not over until he puts his hand on the Bible and takes the oath. It’s not over until then. It’s not over on Election Day, it’s over on Inauguration Day, cause I wouldn’t put anything past anybody,” LaCivita, Trump’s co-campaign manager, told Politico’s Jonathan Martin during a lengthy interview open to press and attendees, and livestreamed, at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.

Trump did not attend Biden’s inauguration, and he and many Republican lawmakers continue to repeat false claims that he won.

LaCivita interrupted with his comment when Martin was in the middle of asking about the prospects for Democrats on Election Day.

“It’s also possible that Donald Trump can lose,” Martin followed up. LaCivita said the campaign will remain focused on the issues.

A few moments later Martin asked LaCivita if he thinks it’s politically wise for Trump to continue campaigning on pardoning the Jan. 6 rioters.

“I always find it amazing that you guys are the ones that bring it up,” LaCivita said, referring to the press.

“That’s not true,” Martin replied.

“I’ve been in a lot of interviews where it’s the first question you guys ask,” LaCivita said. “What we’re talking about right now are the issues that matter, Social Security, protecting Social Security and Medicare, closing the border. I mean we have so much to talk about and that’s where our focus is.”

“In a perfect Chris LaCivita world (Trump) would never say the words ‘Jan. 6 hostages’ again,” Martin followed up.

LaCivita immediately responded and repeated: “Social Security, Medicaid, closing the border, deportation — yeah I said it — all of those things.”

In March, Trump told reporters he was open to cutting Social Security and other entitlement programs as a way to address the national debt.

Election fraud falsely claimed

Trump repeated false claims of election fraud in the months following the 2020 election and lost numerous court challenges in states that he insisted he won.

The fight erupted in political violence on Jan. 6, when a mob of Trump supporters overran the U.S. Capitol Police with improvised weapons and the goal of stopping Congress from certifying the election results.

The historic criminal indictment of a former sitting U.S. president — handed up from a federal grand jury in August 2023 — charges Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstructing an official proceeding, among other felony counts.

Trump has successfully delayed the federal election subversion case as he appealed his motion to dismiss based on president criminal immunity all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices on July 1 ruled in a 6-3 decision that former presidents enjoy broad immunity for official acts, and sparked major questions over what type of evidence can be used in any such prosecution.

‘How do you utilize’ an assassination attempt?

Reaction to the attempted assassination against Trump on Saturday in Butler, Pennsylvania, has evolved over the RNC’s first three days. It’s gone from initial concerns about political violence to rallying around the event as a symbol of how “Trump Strong” can reshape America, as Donald Trump Jr. said Wednesday night.

Trump supporters wore fake bandages on their ears at the RNC as a political symbol, much like the red “Make America Great Again” hat.

“The energy or the emotion that you feel when something like that happens, how do you utilize it? How do you utilize it to get to where you need to be?” LaCivita said.

“How do you utilize it to win an election or how do you utilize it to bring the country together?” Martin followed up.

“I think it’s both,” LaCivita said.

The co-campaign manager sidestepped a question about whether Trump will make an effort during his RNC speech to tell supporters not to believe conspiracy theories circulating online that the shooting was a Democratic plot. Martin asked if LaCivita agreed that Trump tamping down accusations against his opposing political party would be “good for the country.”

LaCivita said the campaign is planning Trump’s speech to be “forward focused.”

“I mean look, there are not enough facts, and it’s not just up to us to talk about the facts resulting around what happened,” LaCivita said as he added to the chorus of criticism of the U.S. Secret Service and calling on its head to resign.

Hours after the shooting Saturday, U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio — announced Monday at the RNC as Trump’s vice presidential pick — wrote on social media that “today is not just some isolated incident.”

“The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s assassination attempt,” he wrote.

Project 2025 a ‘pain in the ass’ for Trump

Of the themes permeating the RNC, the major conservative Project 2025 has dogged Trump’s campaign in a way that LaCivita described as “a pain in the ass.”

The 922-page document spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation roadmaps a presidential transition and plan to overhaul government administrations, to lobby Congress for national abortion restrictions and restoration of “the American family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.”

The organization held an all-day policy fest five blocks from the RNC convention hall Monday.

Trump denies any connection to the project, despite former Trump administration officials identifying their previous positions in the project materials. A CNN analysis found that 140 who previously worked for Trump helped on Project 2025.

LaCivita said any claim that Trump is connected to the project is “utter bulls—t.”

“They do not speak for the campaign.”

Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com. Follow Rhode Island Current on Facebook and X.

MILWAUKEE — Despite former President Donald Trump’s denial of any connection to the conservative presidential transition plan known as Project 2025, the initiative’s driver, the Heritage Foundation, promoted the platform mere blocks from the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, attracting officials and personalities from the party’s most conservative wing.

The project has taken heat from Democrats in recent weeks, who are warning of the plan’s ambitions — among them passing the most stringent abortion ban the next Republican administration can get through Congress and lowering the corporate tax rate — and Trump, the GOP presidential nominee, has sought to distance himself from the proposal.

The multi-pronged project, featuring a 922-page policy prescription and a training academy, received praise from conservatives who traveled to attend the RNC and ancillary events.

The hundreds of pages in Heritage’s mandate promise to overhaul government agencies and “restore the American family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.”

Gun rights advocates at convention spell out plans if GOP gains control in November

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts described the comprehensive policy plan as the unification of the conservative movement at the organization’s all-day Policy Fest near the convention Monday.

“For once in modern American history, we have a plan among a unified movement to speak on behalf of the everyday American, the forgotten American,” Roberts said.

“The reason progressive Democrats hate these ideas so much is because they are a threat to their power,” Roberts continued from the stage at the Bradley Symphony Center in downtown Milwaukee, five blocks from the Fiserv Forum where the RNC was just getting underway.

The foundation’s event on the first day of the convention featured a slate of conservative speakers including Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, former presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy and media personality Tucker Carlson.

Awaiting a Trump presidency

Those who traveled to Milwaukee for the RNC packed the auditorium in collective anticipation of the possibility of a second Trump presidency and the promise of traditionalist priorities emanating from the Oval Office.

“I think President Trump has learned a lot over the last few years about where the movement is, where the country is, and also some real hot spots around the world that didn’t exist when he left office,” Roberts told reporters. “I’ve been very impressed during the campaign by signals that President Trump’s involving a lot of voices. I think this is going to be an administration that is very efficient.”

Stitt told the audience during the afternoon session that “we’re here this week to fight for the American dream, and really our way of life.”

“You know, to our founders, the American dream meant freedom to worship, for you to assemble, freedom to speak one’s mind,” Stitt said. “It meant that there was no limit to what someone could accomplish, and freedom from a government not controlled by the government.”

Democrats warn

The Democratic National Committee, President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign and Democratic lawmakers have seized on Project 2025 in recent weeks — a unifier for the party message after Biden’s poor debate performance unearthed party fractures.

The Biden campaign and its surrogates continued their weeks-long focus on the project Tuesday at a “counter convention” press event around the corner from where Trump is staying at the city’s downtown The Pfister Hotel.

“It’s all written down in Project 2025,” Ben Wikler, Wisconsin’s Democratic Party chair, said at the event primarily focused on economic policies outlined in the plan.

“Donald Trump and J.D. Vance want to ransack the public treasury to hand out massive tax cuts to billionaires and stick working Americans with the bill,” Wikler said.

Trump announced Monday he had chosen Vance, a U.S. senator from Ohio, as his running mate.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey joined the event and warned that Project 2025 would affect Social Security.

“When you’ve worked all your life and paid into Social Security, and you hear what Republicans are trying to do, from their policy groups, in Congress, all the way to what you’ve heard and read in Project 2025, folks that want to limit benefits,” Booker said.

Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said, “I think you should ask yourself, ‘does this project 2025 agenda make my life better if it were to become law?’”

Trump denies

Trump has denied any connection to the project.

“I know nothing about Project 2025. I have not seen it, have no idea who is in charge of it, and, unlike our very well received Republican Platform, had nothing to do with it,” Trump wrote Thursday on his social media platform Truth Social.

“The Radical Left Democrats are having a field day, however, trying to hook me into whatever policies are stated or said. It is pure disinformation on their part,” he continued. “By now, after all of these years, everyone knows where I stand on EVERYTHING!”

Degrees of conservatism

Roberts navigated the tug-of-war over Project 2025 by telling reporters Monday that the plan is meant to be “a menu of options.”

“It is impossible for any individual conservative, I think, to agree with everything that’s stated in the project,” he said.

The platform adopted by the RNC ahead of the convention, short in length, drew criticism from some conservatives, particularly for shying away from supporting a nationwide abortion ban.

When asked about any potential friction among Trump, the RNC platform and Project 2025, Roberts said despite differences he sees “very positive” conversations ahead.

“Presidential campaigns are (in) one lane, the RNC is in another lane, Heritage and Project 2025 and the conservative movement writ large is in another lane,” Roberts said.

“There will always be differences of opinions. We will work on those when we’re talking about specific legislative vehicles in January, and we know that those conversations are going to be very positive,” Roberts said. “We may not always agree, but I think the time now for the center-right in this country is to recognize the American people want one thing to happen and that is for power to be devolved from Washington, D.C.”

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com. Follow Louisiana Illuminator on Facebook and X.

Members of Congress rejected political violence Saturday after a shooting at Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Pennsylvania left at least one rallygoer dead and forced the Secret Service to rush the former president off stage.

Local authorities confirmed the shooter was killed, according to The Associated Press.

The shooting at a crowded outdoor rally in Butler, just an hour outside Pittsburgh, occurred less than 48 hours before the Republican National Convention is set to begin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Trump is expected to become the party’s official presidential nominee on Thursday.

Videofootage of the rally shows Trump bringing his hand to the right side of his face and ducking down behind the podium just after several gunshots and screams were heard. U.S. Secret Service agents huddled around the former president and raced him off the stage as he reached out to pump his fist in the air toward the crowd.

Trump campaign spokesman Steve Cheung issued a statement shortly after that the former president is “fine” and that he thanked law enforcement.

‘Praying for President Trump’

Members of Congress from both political parties uniformly condemned violence in a wave of social media posts and official statements.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, posted on social media that he was “Praying for President Trump.”

“Kelly and I are praying for President Trump and all the attendees of the campaign rally today in Pennsylvania, and we send our gratitude to the law enforcement who responded at the scene,” Johnson wrote.

“I have been briefed by law enforcement and am continuing to monitor the developments,” Johnson added. “This horrific act of political violence at a peaceful campaign rally has no place in this country and should be unanimously and forcefully condemned.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, released a written statement saying that he was “horrified by what happened at the Trump rally in Pennsylvania and relieved that former President Trump is safe.”

“Political violence has no place in our country,” Schumer wrote.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, wrote on social media that “all Americans are grateful that President Trump appears to be fine after a despicable attack on a peaceful rally.”

“Violence has no place in our politics,” McConnell wrote. “We appreciate the swift work of the Secret Service and other law enforcement.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, wrote on social media that his “thoughts and prayers are with former President Trump.”

“I am thankful for the decisive law enforcement response,” Jeffries wrote. “America is a democracy. Political violence of any kind is never acceptable.”

Members of Congress react with horror

Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania issued a statement that he was monitoring the situation that unfolded in Western Pennsylvania.

“(A)nd I’ve reached out (to) the State Police to offer support. Political violence is never acceptable and I am hoping former president Trump & all attendees are safe. Everyone in Butler should listen to law enforcement,” Casey wrote on social media.

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, whose wife Gabby Giffords, a former congresswoman, was shot in 2011 at an event, posted that they were both “horrified.”

“Gabby and I are horrified by the incident in Pennsylvania,” Kelly wrote. “No one should ever have to experience political violence — we know that firsthand. We’re keeping former President Trump, his family, and everyone involved in our thoughts.”

Giffords wrote on her own social media feed that “Political violence is terrifying. I know.”

“I’m holding former President Trump, and all those affected by today’s indefensible act of violence in my heart. Political violence is un-American and is never acceptable — never,” Giffords wrote.

Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, wrote on social media that “(p)olitical violence is despicable, and there is no place for it in America.”

“I’m grateful that former President Trump is safe, and to the law enforcement officials who risked their lives to take action” Peters wrote. “I will continue to closely monitor this developing situation.”

Maine delegation reacts

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins wrote on social media that she was “very relieved that President Trump appears to be OK; however, this violence is absolutely appalling.”

“Thank God for the Secret Service and first responders who hurried President Trump out of harm’s way,” Collins wrote.

“Political violence of any kind is never acceptable. Ever. My thoughts are with the former President, his family, and those who were in attendance,” U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree wrote on X.

Independent U.S. Sen. Angus King said he is “glad to hear former President Trump is safe and wish him a speedy recovery.

“We can disagree on politics, but political violence of any kind is wrong and antithetical to the core American values we believe in,“ King wrote on X.

“I am praying for former President Trump and others at the rally today in PA, as well as for law enforcement on the scene. I pray whoever is responsible is quickly apprehended and held accountable,” U.S. Rep. Jared Golden wrote on social media.

Quick response

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, commended the quick response of Secret Service agents and other authorities on the scene.

“My thoughts and prayers are with former President Donald Trump and his family after hearing news of a shooting at his campaign rally today,” DeLauro of Connecticut posted on social media.

House Republican Mike Turner of Ohio, chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued a statement saying “As the situation unfolds in Butler, Pennsylvania, I urge everyone to join me in praying for President Trump and our country.”

House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York wrote on social media that “AMERICA IS PRAYING! GOD BLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP! #SAVEAMERICA,”

“I’m praying for President Trump. I hope everyone will join me,” former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy wrote on X.

“Jacquie and I are praying for President Trump and all of the attendees at today’s rally. President Trump is a proven warrior who has overcome adversity time and time again. He will rise above this horrifying situation stronger than ever,” House Republican Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota posted.

Former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney, an outspoken critic of Trump and ranking member of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, said news of the shooting was “horrifying.”

“Violence of any kind has no place in American politics. We are grateful for the reaction of Secret Service and other law enforcement and pray for the former president and all those injured,” Cheney wrote on social media.

Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement on social media saying he was “shocked by the apparent attack on President Trump.”

“We pray for his safety and speedy recovery,” the leader of the U.S. ally said.

Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com. Follow Maine Morning Star on Facebook and X.

The Rules Committee voted 9-7 along party lines to, in essence, temporarily change a Senate floor process to allow votes on large groups of military nominees rather than having to approve them one by one. The resolution is seen as temporary because it would extend through the end of this session of Congress rather than permanently.

Whether Democrats can gain enough votes from across the aisle to support the change on the floor is unclear.

The Senate has routinely confirmed large blocs of military nominees under the unanimous consent process, meaning all senators agree to approve the nominees without calling a floor vote on each one.

Tuberville, a Republican, has been objecting to the time-saving unanimous consent process since the spring to display his opposition to a policy that grants members of the armed services time off and travel reimbursement when seeking an abortion in states where it remains unrestricted. The Pentagon policy was authorized after last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who sits on the Rules Committee, said the change would allow “swift confirmation” of the nominees and that he plans to bring it to the floor “shortly” if his GOP colleagues cannot convince Tuberville to drop his freeze on the nominations.

“We need to get these military nominees confirmed ASAP for the sake of our national security. Military nominees for a decade have been the most bipartisan parts of the Senate,” Schumer said.

“The idea of blocking the confirmation of military officers in order to make a political statement, no matter how deeply felt, has long been considered — long been considered — unthinkable,” he said, moving his hands to emphasize his point.

But Republican leadership is advising against changing the Senate procedure.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said that while Tuberville’s “nearly unprecedented” strategy “is not — not — the way to reach the desired outcome he and I share,” he will not support the proposed detour around Tuberville’s nomination holds.

“Ultimately the best path forward for everyone involved will be one that allows us to clear the nominations backlog and preserve our substantive opposition to the Biden administration’s atrocious policy,” McConnell said.

The resolution introduced by Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, is in response to the growing list of unconfirmed military nominees stalled by Tuberville.

As of Tuesday, 359 of the more than 450 nominees awaiting confirmation are affected by Tuberville’s blanket hold, according to the Pentagon.

Vote on floor potentially next

Reed, chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, said in a statement after the Rules Committee vote that his Alabama counterpart is using “a hyper-partisan maneuver to try and weaponize the military promotion process.”

“Indefinitely blocking all these merit-based military promotions has harmed the national security of the United States,” said Reed, who crafted the resolution with support from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona independent.

Reed characterized the resolution as “bipartisan.”

“This resolution offers every member of the Senate a chance to vote to either support or overcome this irresponsible blockade. I have faith that senators from both parties care deeply about our service men and women and will do the right thing,” said Reed.

The standing order resolution could now head to the Senate floor, where Democrats, who hold a slim majority, will need the support of nine Republicans to meet the threshold for approval.

No amendments were filed ahead of Tuesday’s committee vote, said Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, chair of the Rules Committee, who quickly called the vote roughly 20 minutes into the meeting.

“We need to do what it takes to make sure our military has its leaders in place to protect our country,” said Klobuchar of Minnesota.

‘Political maneuver’

Republicans largely characterized the change as a blow to the minority’s leverage, despite the Democrats’ argument that the new procedure would expire at the end of the 118th Congress.

The Rules Committee’s ranking member, Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, dismissed the resolution as a “political maneuver.”

“At its core, the resolution is an attempt to protect the Biden administration’s poor policy decisions,” Fischer said in her opening remarks.

She, and many of her Senate GOP colleagues including Tuberville, argue that despite a prohibition of taxpayer funds for abortion, the policy “facilitates abortions by paying for travel across state lines to obtain one.”

“This policy not only goes beyond the Department of Defense’s statutory authority, it doesn’t do anything to increase our military readiness and hasn’t even been broadly utilized. Unofficial reports indicate it likely has been used by only 12 women,” Fischer said.

The Biden administration and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin maintain the policy is legal.

The Department of Justice in 2022 delivered an opinion assessing the policy as lawful.

The Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision to overturn the federal right to abortion has left a patchwork of state-by-state regulations on the practice.

Roughly 80,000 active-duty female service members are stationed in states where legislatures enacted full or partial bans, according to RAND.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com. Follow Alabama Reflector on Facebook and Twitter.