(WASHINGTON) -- The Biden administration on Thursday announced a series of new rules to cut pollution emitted from coal and natural gas fired power plants impacting the air, water, land and climate.

"The electricity industry is central to America's economic growth and independence. These are the folks who keep the lights on and power our country forward," Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan said. "At the same time, the power sector is also a major contributor to the pollution that drives climate change and threatens public health."

"At EPA it is our responsibility to act within the bounds of our legal authority and assess impacts in a way that is smart, effective, follows the latest science and enables our economy to grow and thrive," he added.

Power plants account for more than one-quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., according to the EPA, making them one of the most potent sources of climate pollution in the country.

"The age of unbridled climate pollution from power plants is over. These standards cut carbon emissions, at last, from the single largest industrial source," Manish Bapna, president and chief executive officer of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. "They fit hand-in-glove with the clean energy incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act to make sure we cut our carbon footprint. They will reduce other dangerous pollutants that foul the air we breathe and threaten our health."

The agency claims these four new regulations, taken together, will represent a massive reduction in pollution and hundreds of billions of dollars in climate and public health benefits.

Decarbonizing the power sector

The first of the new EPA rules updates a provision of the Clean Air Act to require existing coal-fired power plants and new natural gas plants to control 90% of their carbon pollution through technologies like carbon capture.

Through 2047, an administration regulatory impact analysis found this new standard will avoid 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon pollution -- the equivalent of 328 million gas-powered cars' annual emissions.

Evergreen Action senior policy lead for the power sector Charles Harper told ABC News that the decarbonization measure is a "major game changer for climate action in this country," saying it will, "get at one of the largest sources of carbon pollution in the economy."

The Biden administration says the rule will create $370 billion in climate and public health benefits in the next 20 years, including 1,200 avoided premature deaths and 1,900 cases of asthma onset avoided.

"It's a real win for climate change and folks who live on planet Earth," Harper added.

Edison Electric Institute, an organization representing U.S. investor-owned electric companies, told ABC News it supports the EPA move, but has concerns.

"While we appreciate and support EPA's work to develop a clear, continued path for the transition to cleaner resources, we are disappointed that the agency did not address the concerns we raised about carbon capture and storage (CCS)," EEI President and CEO Dan Brouillette said in a statement. "CCS is not yet ready for full-scale, economy-wide deployment, nor is there sufficient time to permit, finance, and build the CCS infrastructure needed for compliance by 2032."

"We will remain engaged with EPA and with state agencies as they implement these rules," the organization added. "We also will continue to work constructively with EPA as it develops a new proposal for existing natural gas turbines."

Tightening mercury and air toxics standards

Another rule updates the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for coal-fired plants.

One provision of the rule tightens the emissions standard for toxic metals by 67%. The other requires a 70% reduction in the mercury emissions standard specifically from lignite coal-fired power plants.

"This new standard will also require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems to provide real-time accurate data to facility operators and to the public to ensure that plants are meeting these lower limits and that communities are protected year round from pollution exposure," Regan said.

By 2028, the EPA estimates the new rule will result in 1,000 pounds of mercury emissions reductions in addition to seven tons of other hazardous air pollutant emissions, 770 tons of fine particulate matter pollution and others.

Reducing power plant. waste water pollution

A third rule would reduce waste water pollutants from coal-fired power plants by over 660 million pounds per year, according to the EPA, with the goal of protecting freshwater and drinking water resources for communities around the country.

The agency used its authority under the Clean Water Act for the implementation of this rule, which includes flexible compliance options for coal-fired plants with plans to stop burning coal by 2034. Plants intending to retire coal use will only need to meet current standards, rather than the updated, stricter ones.

President of the Hip Hop Caucus, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, told ABC News that even in divisive times, "people want clean air and clean water." Yearwood's organization works on environmental justice efforts, among other priorities.

"We don't get along right now in our country. We're not seeing eye to eye on too many things," Yearwood said. "But one thing that we see eye to eye on is that we all seem to want clean water."

Yearwood explained that often the burden of pollution falls disproportionately on Black, brown and Indigenous communities, whose communities may be considered "sacrifice zones" by polluters.

The EPA noted the impact of this rule on "communities with environmental justice concerns that are disproportionately impacted" in the release announcing the measures.

Coal ash containment protections

A final rule from the EPA marks the first federal regulation for the management of coal ash, including potential contamination of groundwater.

Burning coal in these power plants creates coal ash, which can contaminate waterways and water systems, in addition to the air, according to the EPA.

The rule, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, requires coal-fired power plants to control and clean coal ash that's a byproduct of their operation -- in addition to areas historically contaminated by coal ash.

"With this rule, we are ensuring that polluters are held accountable for controlling and cleaning up the contamination created by their disposal of coal ash," Regan said, noting that each of the four new rules contains "transparency requirements" to protect affected communities.

Election-year implications

This slate of rules is accompanied by a separate announcement from the Department of Energy of efforts to build out transmission lines to clean energy sources around the nation.

The new DOE rule creates the Coordinated Interagency Transmission Authorization and Permits (CITAP) program, which aims to make the federal permitting process for transmission projects more efficient -- giving them a standardized two-year timeline.

The EPA rules mark the latest in a series of major regulatory announcements by the agency, as it has been working to finalize several outstanding sets of rule proposals.

Environmental organizations told ABC News they have been pressuring the Biden administration to get rules out the door before the Congressional Review Act period begins.

"There's this one law, called the Congressional Review Act, which might allow Republicans to try to meddle with some of the accomplishments by the Biden Administration and EPA and the Administration is very wary and cognizant of any deadlines posed by the Congressional Review Act," Harper told ABC News. "The fact that the EPA is finalizing all these rules and month of April means that they're likely insulated from any potential meddling by congressional Republicans."

Yearwood said these environmental regulations could have potential to sway the election, but said it'll be a "mad dash now," to see which way it goes.

"For my Republican friends, I think that you may have missed the ball with underestimating the importance of clean air and clean water for these communities. That may be their undoing," he said. "On the other hand, I think, for Democrats, I think that they are in a position where they may have waited too late, actually. This is something that I think should have been moving much stronger on."

"It just befuddles me that they waited so long to get to the soil on both standpoints. We'll see. It'll be a mad dash now because on one hand, I think that if this can be more crystallized for Americans, and they can understand the importance of climate, and particularly pollution, I think that this could actually tilt the scales from one way or the other," Yearwood said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) -- Several former and current key aides to former President Donald Trump appear to be among those charged by the Arizona State Attorney General over their alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They include Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and former Trump attorney John Eastman -- as well Boris Epshteyn, who remains one of Trump's closest advisers and a current member of his 2024 campaign team.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes also announced charges against 11 named alleged fake electors and seven people whose names are redacted in the filing for their alleged role in efforts to subvert Joe Biden's 2020 victory in the state.

The charges include fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.

"Unindicted Coconspirator 1" in the indictment appears to be Trump as the language of the document says they were involved in a scheme to keep him and former Vice President Mike Pence "in office against the will of Arizona’s voters."

Based on a review of descriptions of the seven redacted names in the Arizona indictment, the additional co-defendants are Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Boris Epshteyn (Trump 2024 senior adviser), John Eastman, Christina Bobb (RNC senior counsel for election integrity), Jenna Ellis and Mike Roman.

Rudy Giuliani

The indictment described one individual, appearing to match the description of Rudy Giuliani, as "the mayor" who "spread false claims of election fraud."

The full description from the filing reads: "An attorney for Unindicted Coconspirator 1 who was often identified as 'the Mayor.' He spread false claims of election fraud in Arizona and nationally shortly after November 3, 2020. He presided over a 'hearing' in downtown Phoenix on November 30, 2020, where he falsely claimed that Arizona's election officials 'have made no effort to find out' if the results of the recent presidential election were accurate. He pressured the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Arizona legislators to change the outcome of Arizona's election, and he was responsible for encouraging Republican electors in Arizona and in six other contested states to vote for Trump-Pence on December 14, 2020."

In a statement to ABC News Wednesday night, an adviser to Giuliani said, "The continued weaponization of our justice system should concern every American, from Arizona to Michigan and everywhere in between, as it does permanent, irrevocable harm to the country."

Mark Meadows

The indictment also described another indicted individual as the "chief of staff" in 2020 -- appearing to match Mark Meadows’s description.

Full description: "[REDACTED] was Unindicted Coconspirator 1's Chief of Staff in 2020. He worked with members of the Trump Campaign to coordinate and implement the false Republican electors' votes in Arizona and six other states.  was involved in the many efforts to keep Unindicted Coconspirator 1 in power despite his defeat at the polls."

Boris Epshteyn

The charging document details an attorney and adviser for Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns who helped implement "the scheme to submit false Republican electors."

Full description: "[REDACTED] was an attorney and was an advisor to the Trump Campaigns in 2016 and 2020. in implementing the scheme to submit false Republican electors' votes for Trump-Pence in Arizona and to obstruct the certification process during the January 6, 2021, Joint Session of Congress in Washington."

John Eastman

The indictment details an attorney who "spread false claims of widespread election fraud" and pressured former Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers to convene a Special Session. Bowers has detailed how Eastman told him to "just do it and let the court sort it out."

Full description: "[REDACTED] was an attorney who encouraged the Republican electors to vote on December 14, 2020, and spread false claims of widespread election fraud. He also pressured the legislature in Arizona and six other states to change the outcome of the election. For example, on January 4, 2021, pushed then-Arizona Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers to convene a Special Session to decertify Arizona's presidential electors, telling him to 'just do it and let the court sort it out.' Bowers declined to do so. Also on January 4,  met at the White House with Unindicted Coconspirator 1, Pence, and others to convince Pence to reject or at least delay the confirmation of the lawfully chosen electors two days later at the Joint Session of Congress."

Christina Bobb

The indictment describes an attorney for Trump who "lobbied" Arizona legislators and also helped organize the fake electors plot. Bobb was a part of the Trump campaign until recently being named the Republican National Committee’s senior counsel for "election integrity."

Full description: "[REDACTED] Campaign and worked closely with  was an attorney for the Trump lobbied Arizona's Republican legislators after the 2020 presidential election to disregard the popular vote in Arizona. She additionally helped organize the false Arizona Republican electors' votes on December 14, 2020."

Jenna Ellis

The charging document also lists an attorney who "worked closely" with another individual who was also charged and spread false election claims in AZ and six other states.

Full description: "[REDACTED] was an attorney for the Trump Campaign and worked closely with  She made false claims of widespread election fraud in Arizona and in six other states.  encouraged the Arizona Legislature to change the outcome of the election. She also encouraged Pence to accept the false Arizona Republican electors' votes on January 6, 2021."

Mike Roman

The indictment lists the "director of election day operations for the Trump Campaign," which was Roman's position.

Full description: "[REDACTED] was the Director of Election Day Operations for the Trump Campaign. He worked closely with  Unindicted Coconspirator 4, and others to organize the false Republican electors' votes in Arizona and in six other states."

Mayes said in a release all the names would be unredacted when all defendants have been served.

In a video posted to X Wednesday night, Mayes said the defendants charged were "unwilling to accept Arizona's election was free and fair" and allegedly schemed to "prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency."

"We're here because justice demands an answer to the efforts of the defendants and other unindicted co-conspirators allegedly took to undermine the will of Arizona's voters during the 2020 presidential election," Mayes said.  

"Arizona's election was free and fair. The people of Arizona elected President Biden. Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury, allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency," she continued.

"Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for and I was elected to uphold the law of this state," Mayes added. "The scheme, had it succeeded, would have deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."

In filing the indictment, Arizona becomes the fourth state to file criminal charges against the so-called "fake electors" who allegedly announced they were ready to pledge electoral votes to Donald Trump in their respective states during the 2020 election, despite Joe Biden winning those states.

The 11 current named defendants in the indictment whose names are visible on the court document are Kelli Ward, Tyler Bower, Nancy Cottle, Jacob Hoffman, Anthony Kern, James Lamon, Robert Montgomery, Samuel Moorhead, Lorraine Pellegrino, Gregory Safsten and Michael Ward.

According to the indictment, 11 Republicans met in Arizona in December 2020, including then-Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, two Republican lawmakers, and a top official with the Republican National Committee, and signed documents that falsely claimed they were Arizona's rightful electors.

"Today, Arizona's 11 Republican presidential electors met to cast their votes for President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence," the Arizona GOP tweeted in December 2020. "With ongoing legal challenges to the 2020 presidential election still being heard in the courts across the country holding hearings on election fraud and voting irregularities, it is imperative that the proper elections are counted by Congress."

All 11 alleged fake electors were also part of a legal challenge in the state that sought to challenge the election results based on allegations of voter fraud. The case was thrown out by a judge who called their claims of election fraud "sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence."

Rusty Bowers, then the Arizona House speaker, told the House Jan. 6 committee that following the election he received calls from Trump and attorney Rudy Giuliani claiming that there was election fraud in the state.

"I was insistent that I had to have proof, real proof, judicial level," Bowers testified. "That's the kind of proof I'm talking about. And the president said, 'Rudy, give the man what he wants.'"

Asked by ABC News' Jonathan Karl if Giuliani ever provided that evidence, Bowers said, "He never gave us anything. No names, no data, nothing."

Bowers also said that Giuliani and attorney Jenna Ellis flew to Phoenix and met with him and other Arizona lawmakers, and asked them to convene the legislature to investigate their unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.

In December, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford announced felony charges against six alleged "fake electors" in that state. In Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nessel similarly charged 16 "alternate electors" in July for conspiracy to commit forgery, among other charges. And in Georgia, three such "fake electors" were among the 18 co-defendants charged, along with Trump, in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in that state.

All defendants charged in all three probes have pleaded not guilty, with Georgia defendants Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell and Scott Hall subsequently taking plea deals in exchange for agreeing to testify in that case. In Michigan, the attorney general dropped all charges against defendant Jim Renner in exchange for his cooperation.

ABC News previously reported that Trump's Georgia co-defendant Michael Roman was subpoenaed as part of the Arizona probe and that Chesebro sat for a voluntary interview with Arizona investigators in recent weeks.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) -- A bill aimed at furthering restrictions on discussions of "gender identity or sexual orientation" in public schools is progressing in the Alabama legislature, passing the state House on Tuesday.

Current law states that classrooms in kindergarten through the fifth grade "shall not engage in classroom discussion or provide classroom instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

The bill would expand this restriction to eighth grade and prohibit flags symbolizing sexual orientations or gender identities in K-12 schools.

Gender identity, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is "an individual’s sense of their self as man, woman, transgender, or something else."

Sexual orientation refers to "a person’s sexual and emotional attraction to another person and the behavior and/or social affiliation that may result from this attraction," according to the CDC.

State Rep. Mack Butler, the bill’s sponsor, said in a March hearing the bill is a response to "some indoctrination going on." He said the bill seeks to "purify the schools."

"It is a component of Marxism where we're -- you know -- destroying the family and teaching some of these things," said Butler. "Let it happen somewhere else other than our schools."

Critics argue that these restrictions, dubbed "Don’t Say Gay," could broadly restrict conversation about gender and sexuality --including both non-LGBTQ and LGBTQ identities.

They also argue that the bill violates students’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights, and could silence LGBTQ students and teachers in classrooms.

"If HB130 passes, it will rid classrooms and students in the state of Alabama of inclusive discussion that is essential at all stages of life," the ACLU of Alabama said in a statement against the legislation.

A similar law in Florida sparked controversy for its restrictions and inspired almost identical policies across the country. However, a settlement was reached in a lawsuit against the legislation.

A judge decided that students and educators can discuss LGBTQ topics or write about such topics in their work, as long as those conversations are not part of formal curriculum, with both sides of the debate claiming the decision as a win.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) -- During a visit to Columbia University on Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson joined his New York House Republican colleagues in calling on the school's president, Minouche Shafik, to resign unless she can improve what he called her failure to handle the anti-Israel protests on campus.

In a news conference on the university's campus, Johnson said Shafik should step down "if she can't immediately bring order to this chaos."

"As speaker of the House, I am committing today that the Congress will not be silent as Jewish students are expected to run for their lives and stay home from their classes -- fighting in fear," Johnson said.

The scene at the news conference was rowdy itself, as Johnson and other House Republicans got booed and heckled throughout -- sometimes nearly drowned out by shouting from the crowd.

"The cherished traditions of this university are being overtaken right now by radical and extreme ideologies. They place a target on the backs of Jewish students in the United States and here on this campus," Johnson said.

He said he planned to speak to President Joe Biden, whose administration has also condemned any antisemitic demonstrations, once he departed the campus to "share with him what we have seen with our own two eyes and demand that he take action."

"There is executive authority that would be appropriate," Johnson said.

"If this is not contained quickly, and if these threats and intimidation are not stopped -- there is an appropriate time for the National Guard. We have to bring order to these campuses. We cannot allow this to happen around the country. We are better than this. We are better than this. And I will ask the president to do that, and I will tell him the very same thing," Johnson said.

Last week, more than 100 pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested at Columbia as they called for the divestment of college and university funds from Israeli military operations.

Other participants in Columbia's ongoing, encampment-style protests were suspended and removed from campus.

The demonstrations, which began on April 17, followed Shafik's testimony to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce about antisemitism on college campuses. New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, a leading conservative, called for Shafik's resignation days later, writing in a post on X that Columbia "failed to enforce their own campus rules and protect Jewish students on campus."

Testifying before the congressional committee last week, Shafik said she has taken actions to combat antisemitism on campus since a terror attack on Oct. 7 sparked Israel's war with Hamas, including enhancing Columbia's reporting channels, hiring staff to investigate complaints and forming an antisemitism task force.

"Safety is paramount and we would do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of our campus," Shafik said. "We must uphold freedom of speech because it's essential to our academic mission, but we cannot and shouldn't tolerate abuse of this privilege to harass and discriminate."

The presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania resigned from their positions after testifying about campus culture and antisemitism before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce earlier this year.

Shafik, who met with Johnson on Wednesday, and the rest of the university administration are committed to ensuring the safety of the campus community and ending the encampment, Columbia spokesman Ben Chang said in a briefing with reporters later on Wednesday.

The student encampment on campus has raised serious safety concerns, Chang said.

The university and some of its representatives have been in dialogue with students on ending the encampment and Chang said the university believes those discussions will ultimately be "successful."

Following the arrests at Columbia, student protests have appeared elsewhere in the U.S., including at Yale University, New York University, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tufts University and across the country -- at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Southern California.

Criticism of Israel in the U.S. and internationally has been mounting as a humanitarian crisis unfolds in Gaza amid Israel's attempt to destroy Hamas terrorists.

Johnson, who also met with Jewish students at Columbia, said "their bravery is inspiring, much more inspiring than some of the activities we're seeing here. They should never have to confront such hate on an American college campus instead of such a revered institution."

His visit comes as the Israel-Hamas war continues to be highly politicized. Johnson earned bipartisan praise for his reversal on a foreign aid package that Biden signed into law Wednesday that included roughly $26 billion for Israel as its war with Hamas rages on in Gaza.

Hamas is thought to still be holding dozens of hostages taken in its October terror attack, which killed 1,200.

More than 34,000 people have died in Gaza since the war began, according to the Hamas-run health ministry there.

The protests on U.S. campuses have been largely peaceful, according to school administrators, with some, including New York police, as well as protesters blaming individuals not affiliated with the schools for instances of violence and offensive or antisemitic rhetoric.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- In the summer of 2019, only hours after an Iranian rocket accidentally exploded at one of Iran's own launch sites, senior U.S. officials met with then-president Donald Trump and shared a sharply detailed, highly classified image of the blast's catastrophic aftermath.

The image was captured by a U.S. satellite whose true capabilities were a tightly guarded secret. But Trump wanted to share it with the world -- he thought it was especially "sexy" because it was marked classified, one of his former advisers later recalled to special counsel Jack Smith's investigators, according to sources familiar with the former adviser's statements.

Worried that the image becoming public could hurt national security efforts, intelligence officials urged Trump to hold off until more knowledgeable experts were able to weigh in, the sources said. But less than an hour later, while at least one of those intelligence officials was in another building scrambling to get more information, Trump posted the image to Twitter.

"It was so upsetting, and people were really angry," one of Trump's former advisers told investigators, sources said.

The public pushback to Trump's post was immediate: Intelligence experts and even international media questioned whether U.S. interests had just been endangered by what Trump did. When pressed about it at the White House, Trump insisted he hadn't released classified information because he had an "absolute right to do" it.

While much of Smith's sprawling classified documents investigation has focused on how Trump handled classified materials after leaving the White House, a wide array of former aides and advisers -- including personal valets, press assistants, senior national security officials, and even Trump's briefers from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence -- have provided Smith with firsthand accounts about how Trump allegedly handled and used intelligence while still in office.

Those firsthand accounts, as relayed to ABC News by sources, underscore what could be at stake as Trump seeks a return to the White House, and they are coming to light as he is likely on the verge of receiving formal government briefings again as the Republican Party's official nominee in the 2024 presidential election.

In interviews with investigators last year, former aides and national security officials who were close to Trump in the White House described a president who could erupt in anger when presented with intelligence he didn't want to hear, who routinely reviewed and stored classified information in unsecured locations, and who had what some former officials described as "a cavalier attitude" toward the damage that could be done by its disclosure, according to sources.

A book published on the CIA's website, describing the intelligence community's experience with Trump during his transition to the presidency and then his time in the White House, said that while Trump was "suspicious and insecure about the intelligence process," he still "engaged with it," even as he publicly attacked it.

The book also noted that Trump was "unique" among presidents in that, before taking over the White House, "he had no experience handling classified information or working with military, diplomatic, or intelligence programs and operations."

'Hand in the woodchipper'

As former officials described meetings with Trump to Smith's team, Trump only wanted to listen to new information about certain parts of the world, according to sources.

In particular, the sources said, Smith's team was told that Trump was uninterested in hearing about Latin America or countries that he similarly thought were not essential. The sources said witnesses confirmed previous public reporting that Trump referred to such places as "s---hole countries" and suggested the United States should stop welcoming migrants from them.

Today, on the presidential campaign trail, Trump continues to rail against migrants from Latin American countries and others who reached the southern border through parts of Latin America.

Sources said former officials also told Smith's team that Trump refused to listen to certain briefings related to Russia, saying Trump "absolutely" didn't want to hear about Russian influence operations, and he couldn't be convinced that Russian troops were already operating inside Ukraine -- even as his own administration was publicly calling out their routine incursions into the country's eastern region to support Russian-backed separatists.

On the campaign trail, Trump recently insisted that he would have prevented Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 if he were still commander-in-chief.

Family of man killed when Chicago police fired 96 times during traffic stop file wrongful death suit
According to the sources, one of Trump's former advisers joked with Smith's team last year that bringing up Russia during a meeting with Trump was like "stick[ing] my hand in the woodchipper again."

In its most recent worldwide assessment, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that Russia continues to pose a significant threat to U.S. national security and, more broadly, to "rules-based international order."

As he has done in public, Trump often privately disagreed with conclusions reached by the U.S. intelligence community, especially related to Russia and Ukraine, choosing instead to rely on unverified claims from other people, sources said that Smith's investigators were told.

And sources said former aides confirmed to Smith's investigators previous media reports that Trump almost never read the President's Daily Brief, a report summarizing classified intelligence and analysis on the day's most pressing issues.

Trump preferred to receive such summaries verbally, according to sources.

Reached for comment, a spokesperson for Trump referred ABC News to a statement by the former president in which he called the classified documents case a "two-tiered system of justice and unconstitutional selective prosecution."

A spokesperson for the special counsel declined to comment to ABC News.

'Like a junk drawer'

Throughout Trump's presidency, many of those who interacted with Trump every day saw him bring classified documents to unsecured locations, raising concerns among some of them, several witnesses told Smith's team, the sources said.

As early as 2018, the Office of the Staff Secretary, which manages the documents flowing to the Oval Office, began asking personnel in the White House about documents that had gone missing, including some classified ones, one of Trump's personal valets told investigators, sources said.

And at one point, sources said the valet recalled, he even warned the staff secretary's office that classified documents were being taken out of secure locations in white boxes and ending up in all sorts of potentially concerning places.

According to the sources, several witnesses told Smith's team that they routinely saw classified documents or classified folders in Trump's White House residence, and that Trump would sometimes store as many as 30 boxes in his bedroom, which one valet said Trump treated "like a junk drawer."

While it's not clear how many boxes at any given time in Trump's residence contained documents with classification markings, witnesses said they frequently observed boxes and papers traveling from the Oval Office to his residence that contained classified documents, according to sources familiar with what witnesses have told the special counsel.

"I did not think that he respected what classified information was," sources quoted one former official as telling investigators.

In Trump's first year in office, several media reports described how Trump had allegedly exposed sensitive information: In February 2017, he and Japan's then-prime minister reportedly discussed a response to North Korea's latest ballistic missile test over dinner in a crowded dining room at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, and then two months later Trump told the Philippines president on a phone call that the U.S. military had positioned two nuclear submarines near North Korea.

The following month, Trump reportedly shared highly-sensitive intelligence about ISIS with Russian officials visiting the White House.

Some witnesses who spoke with Smith's team, however, said they were not concerned by what they saw while Trump was president.

Robert O'Brien, who served as Trump's national security adviser at the end of his presidency, told Smith's team that Trump "consistently" handled classified information appropriately, sources said.

'The Hunger Games'

As some former officials described it to Smith's investigators, discussing the latest intelligence with Trump could be an unpredictable task, sources said.

At times he would become so upset over what senior national security or intelligence officials were telling him that it would derail entire meetings, according to sources familiar with what witnesses told investigators.

In one series of meetings, ahead of an international summit in Europe, Trump met with then-CIA director Gina Haspel, then-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and others to help plan for the summit. But when Trump was told positive things about one of the people he would likely meet at the summit, Trump "lost it," insisting that he didn't care, then he "lost it" again when he was being updated on a tax-related negotiation involving Mnuchin, sources said.

The sources said Trump then pitted one of his top aides against Mnuchin in front of everyone else, escalating the tension so much that it reminded one of those present of the movie "The Hunger Games," with its dystopian death match broadcast live on national TV.

The book published on the CIA's website quoted former President Barack Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, as saying that Trump was prone to "fly off on tangents; there might be eight or nine minutes of real intelligence in an hour's discussion."

And while the intelligence community worked with evidence, Trump "was 'fact-free' -- evidence doesn't cut it with him," according to Clapper.

Still, Clapper said Trump could be "courteous, affable, and complimentary" when he engaged with or referred to members of the U.S. intelligence community.

'People were really angry'

Sources said that, as one former official described it to Smith's team, Trump's posting of the image from Iran's failed rocket launch revealed how the then-president "just didn't care" about protecting classified information.

In 2021, Yahoo! News described how, during his briefing with intelligence officials, Trump thought the image "was very neat, and asked if he could keep it," which made some of the intelligence officials nervous, according to an administration official. But that news report didn't offer the same detailed account provided to Smith by witnesses last year.

Sources told ABC News that while speaking with Smith's team, former aides and officials said Trump was specifically warned at the time that while he had the authority to declassify the image of Iran's botched launch, there were also potential risks associated with doing that.

Trump initially agreed to wait while intelligence officials were then consulted, sources said, but the intelligence officials apparently took too long; about an hour later, Trump posted the image online.

"I was so appalled," one former national security official told Smith's team, according to the sources.

The former official noted that Trump may have believed it wasn't a big deal -- but only an expert would know if releasing such classified information could reveal "how we got it" it and whether it could "compromise our ability to get [it] in the future," the former official explained to Smith's team, according to the sources.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- It was maybe the most memorable moment so far in Donald Trump's case for "absolute presidential immunity" -- and it could come up again at the U.S. Supreme Court in historic arguments on Thursday.

The arresting question: Could a commander in chief order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and not face criminal prosecution?

His lawyer suggested he could, under certain circumstances.

The exchange took place at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington in January, where Trump took his immunity fight after the theory was flatly rejected by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing his federal election subversion case.

"I asked you a yes-or-no question," Judge Florence Pan said during the arguments. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival [and] who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"

"If he were impeached and convicted first," Trump attorney John Sauer responded.

"So your answer is no," Pan said.

Sauer, attempting to avoid a straight yes or no, said his answer was a "qualified yes" as he maintained a House impeachment and Senate conviction needed to occur before criminal liability can come into play. He also predicted that if a president did order an assassination, he would be "speedily" impeached.

Special counsel attorney James Pearce, arguing for the government, called such a theory "frightening."

"I mean, what kind of world are we living in?" Pearce argued. "If, as I understood my friend on the other side to say here, a president orders SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigned, for example before an impeachment, it's not a criminal act ... I think that is extraordinarily frightening future."

The three-judge panel went on to strike down Trump's immunity argument in a unanimous decision, stating they could not accept his assertion that a president has "unbounded authority to commit crimes." Such a stance, they warned, would "collapse our system of separated powers."

The former president appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The fallout from Sauer's response was swift, and continues to feature predominately in amicus briefs filed to the high court as it weighs the case. When justices hear arguments in the case on Thursday, Sauer will again be representing Trump.

In a filing in support of Trump, a trio of former military leaders said regardless of the question of immunity, a president has no authority to order the military to kill a political rival and even if he did, the military would not carry it out.

But other national security experts, in a brief in support of special counsel Jack Smith, were less certain subordinates would refuse a presidential order.

"The rule of law will be threatened unless federal courts have protection against intimidation by a criminal president in command of Seal Team 6 or any other unit of the U.S. Armed Forces," the brief read.

The immunity question presents an unprecedented constitutional quandary for the Supreme Court. Trump is the first ever president -- current or former -- to face criminal charges.

The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether Trump stands trial before the November election on four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy against rights, for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to the counts.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(PHOENIX) -- Three Republicans on Wednesday joined Democrats in the Arizona House to vote to repeal the state's controversial 1864 ban on nearly all abortions, which was revived by a court ruling earlier this month and which only includes exceptions to save the life of the pregnant woman.

The final vote was 32-28.

The repeal bill, pushed by Democrats, next heads to the state Senate where it could be taken up next week.

The chamber on Wednesday separately conducted a second read of its own abortion ban repeal bill, without objection, setting up a parallel vote -- though that is likely moot now because the House bill has been approved.

Two Republican senators have already said they will support the repeal effort, signaling the House bill should pass that chamber and then head to Gov. Katie Hobbs' desk to be signed into law.

The repeal of the ban would then take effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, which must be before June 30.

"This is a stain on history that this ban even exists -- from a time when the age of consent was 10, from a time when women didn't have the right to vote," Arizona state Sen. Eva Burch, a Democrat, told ABC News' Elizabeth Schulze amid an earlier, failed effort to approve the repeal bill in the state House.

Many Republicans sharply objected on Wednesday to the push to undo the Civil War-era ban that has roiled the politics of the state after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that it is enforceable.

Leading conservatives like Trump, former Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey and Senate candidate Kari Lake have touted their general support for abortion restrictions but said the 1864 ban goes too far.

"This total ban on abortion that the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled on is out of line with where the people of this state are," Lake said in a video statement on social media earlier this month.

House Speaker Ben Toma rose to object to the vote on the House floor on Wednesday. The leader has been a vocal opponent of “rushing” any repeal legislation.

GOP Rep. Alexander Kolodin likewise accused the body, including the Republicans joining with Democrats, of moving forward because of political pressures and likened abortion to the killing of "infants."

"At the end of the day, your politics is important but it is not worth our souls," he said.

The issue is likely to be put directly before voters in November's election.

The Arizona for Abortion Access campaign has been working to get a potential constitutional amendment on the state's ballot to enshrine abortion access. Democrats believe that could boost voter enthusiasm and turnout for their candidates, given how abortion access has succeeded in previous elections since Roe v. Wade's nationwide protections were overruled in 2022.

Family of man killed when Chicago police fired 96 times during traffic stop file wrongful death suit
The campaign has said that they have gathered more than 500,000 signatures -- surpassing the necessary threshold, but will continue to gather signatures “until the wheels fall off,” a spokesperson told ABC News.

ABC News' Oren Oppenheim contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Joe Biden on Wednesday needled rival Donald Trump, laying into the former president as he welcomed the North America's Building Trades Union's endorsement.

"You're the best in the world," Biden said while addressing the NABTU's legislative conference in Washington, D.C. "You know, you had my back in 2020 and because of you, I'm standing here as president of the United States of America. … Because of you, in 2024 we're going to make Donald Trump a loser again! Are you ready?"

"So, it's either Scranton values or Mar-a-Lago values," Biden went on to say, drawing a contrast between his background and Trump's as he repeated an economic argument rolled out during campaign stops in Pennsylvania last week. "These are competing visions of the economy at the heart of this election."

Polling shows that economic issues are top of mind for many voters in what is expected to be a close race, though surveys have found Trump getting more favorable marks than Biden on the economy.

The president doubled down on his differences with Trump later in his speech on Wednesday and said working-class voters are probably familiar with the kind of elites that Biden argued Trump represents.

"Folks, the choice is clear: Donald Trump's vision of America is one of revenge and retribution, a defeated former president who sees the world from Mar-a-Lago and bows down to billionaires, who looks down on American union workers," Biden said.

"Think about the guys you grew up with [that] you'd like to get into the corner and just give them a straight left," Biden said. "I'm not suggesting we hit the president."

Biden -- who has been hammered by Trump and Republicans over high inflation and cost of living issues -- said Trump repeatedly promised to focus on so-called infrastructure week when he was president but in four years "he never built a damn thing," compared with the Biden White House's successful push for new infrastructure investment.

Biden also slammed his predecessor for Trump's alleged treatment, as a businessman, of contractors: "He didn't keep his word."

"The guy has never worked a day in working man's boots," he said of Trump.

Biden also sarcastically took shots at Trump's history of outlandish comments -- reversing a frequent attack from Trump on Biden's own well-known habit of verbal gaffes and misstatements.

"Donald Trump still thinks windmills cause cancer," Biden said to laughter as he made the sign of the cross. "That's what he said. And by the way, remember when he was trying to deal with COVID, he suggested just inject a little bleach in your veins? He missed it -- it all went to his hair. Look, I shouldn't have said that."

In the audience, many members wore T-shirts that read "Joe walks the line," with a depiction of the president wearing his signature aviator sunglasses.

NABTU President Sean McGarvey praised Biden in a statement on Wednesday announcing the union's endorsement, which adds to the list of labor groups backing Biden.

NABTU also endorsed Biden over Trump in the 2020 election. Trump has been supported by some other high-profile unions, including those representing Border Patrol agents and police.

Family of man killed when Chicago police fired 96 times during traffic stop file wrongful death suit
"Joe Biden has proven to be the perfect leader at the perfect time for this country and the working men and women who have built it," McGarvey said in his statement.

He said NABTU, a coalition of unions that boasts 3 million members, plans to mobilize its members to vote for Biden in the fall.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) -- Former President Donald Trump, his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Rudy Giuliani are unindicted co-conspirators in the Michigan attorney general's case against the state's so-called "fake electors" in the 2020 election, a state investigator revealed in court on Wednesday.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel charged 16 Republicans last year with forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery for allegedly attempting to replace Michigan's electoral votes for Joe Biden with electoral votes for Trump at the certification of the vote on Jan. 6, 2021.

During Wednesday's hearing, which was part of preliminary examinations for the so-called fake electors, Howard Shock, a special agent for the attorney general's office, also testified that former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis is also an unindicted co-conspirator.

Shock's revelation was in response to questions from Duane Silverthorn, an attorney for Michele Lundgren, one of the so-called fake electors.

"Finally, former President Donald Trump?" asked Silverthorn.

"Yes," Shock testified.

Ted Goodman, Giuliani's political adviser, said in a statement that the former New York City mayor is "proud to stand up for the countless Americans who raised legitimate concerns surrounding the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election."

"He won't be bullied or pressured into silence by highly partisan actors," the statement said.

Nessel dismissed the charges against one of the alleged fake electors in October in exchange for cooperating with the case. The state is still pursuing charges against the other 15 defendants.

All the defendants have pleaded not guilty.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The U.S. will begin sending military equipment to Ukraine within "a few hours" after the passage of a long-stalled foreign aid package, President Joe Biden announced on Wednesday.

In remarks from the White House, Biden said he had just signed the $95 billion package. He said it will make both America and the world "safer."

"It was a difficult path [to my desk] and it should have been easier, and it should have gotten there sooner," Biden said of the legislation, which was first requested by the administration last fall and seemed all but dead due to GOP-led opposition in the House before the sudden reversal of Speaker Mike Johnson.

"But in the end, we did what America always does: we rose to the moment, came together and we got it done," the president continued. "Now we need to move fast, and we are."

The package provides roughly $61 billion for Ukraine in its fight against Russian invaders, marking the first time in over a year Congress has approved new aid for the war-torn ally. The war has intensified in recent weeks, as more Russian strikes break through with Ukraine's air defenses running low.

In anticipation of the legislation passing, the Biden administration worked up a roughly $1 billion military assistance package for Ukraine, a U.S. official told ABC News on Tuesday.

President Biden said the supplies being immediately sent to Ukraine includes desperately needed air defense munitions, artillery for rocket systems and armored vehicles. He said the supplies will come from U.S. stockpiles that will be replenished by products made by American companies.

Last month, the United States provided Ukraine with long-range ATACMS missiles at Biden's direction, a senior administration official confirmed to ABC News. The missiles were first used last week in an attack on Crimea and another on Tuesday near Berdyansk, a United States official confirmed to ABC News.

ATACM missiles can generally can reach distances between 70 to 300 kilometers.

"America stands with our friends," Biden said. "We stand up against dictators. We bow to no one, to no one, certainly not Vladimir Putin."

Still, he swiped at "MAGA Republicans" for blocking aid for months while Ukrainian supplies ran low and Russia received help from Iran, North Korea and China.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked Congress for the approval of the "vital aid," and emphasized how urgent the issue is.

"The key now is speed," he wrote in a statement posted to X. "The speed of implementing agreements with partners on the supply of weapons for our warriors. The speed of eliminating all Russian schemes to circumvent sanctions. The speed of finding political solutions to protect lives from Russian terror. Every leader who does not waste time is a life saver."

The foreign aid package also includes $26 billion for Israel, currently at war with Hamas in Gaza, as well as $8 billion for allies in the Indo-Pacific. Plus, it includes sanctions on Russia, China and Iran as well as a provision to seize Russian assets to assist Ukraine in rebuilding after the war.

Also tucked into the package is a measure to force a U.S. ban of TikTok if its Chinese parent company doesn't divest from the app within a year, though the company is likely to sue to try to block the law.

Speaking on the Israel aid, Biden said his commitment to the defense of the Jewish state remained "ironclad" while also emphasizing the law includes $1 billion in humanitarian assistance for Gaza. He said Israel must ensure the aid, including food, water and medicine, reaches Palestinian civilians "without delay."

However, Biden lamented one thing not being included in the law: border security.

Republican hard-liners and Johnson had initially insisted foreign aid be tied to border policy changes, arguing more resources shouldn't be sent overseas without addressing domestic issues such as immigration. But then Johnson rejected a bipartisan deal that would have changed asylum laws, hired more immigration judges and more. After the compromise fell apart, the Senate passed its own foreign aid bill that languished in the House before Johnson last week forged ahead with individual votes on foreign aid with the help of Democrats.

"It was bipartisan. It should have been included in this bill and I'm determined to get it done for the American people," Biden said on Wednesday of the immigration proposal.

Closing his remarks, Biden thanked the top congressional leaders -- Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker Johnson and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries -- for eventually uniting on this issue.

"History will remember this moment for all the talk about how dysfunctional things are in Washington, when you look over the past three years, we see that time and again on the critical issues we've actually come together," he said.

ABC News' Selina Wang and Luis Martinez contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, for the first time since overruling Roe v. Wade, considered the scope of a state abortion ban and whether a federal law governing emergency care protects access to abortion at hospitals when a woman's health is at risk.

Idaho's Defense of Life Act, which took effect in August 2022, prohibits nearly all abortions, with exceptions for reported cases of rape or incest or when "necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman."

The Biden administration sued the state, claiming its law conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986, which requires emergency room physicians at hospitals that receive Medicare funds to offer "stabilizing treatment" to all patients whose health is in jeopardy.

The justices will decide whether EMTALA, which does not specifically address abortion, preempts Idaho's abortion ban and similar measures in 20 other states, protecting a doctor's ability to terminate a pregnancy in an emergency situation if care requires it.

Abortion rights advocates say critical health care for a narrow category of pregnant women facing tragic and potentially life-altering conditions hangs in the balance in more than a dozen states that have strict abortion bans with limited exceptions.

Several Republican-led states, backed by anti-abortion groups, say the case could have sweeping implications for their regulation of medical practices and the ability of legislators to set policy on abortion that reflects the view of their communities.

The justices – who did not appear to break cleanly along ideological lines – grappled with a series of overlapping factual and legal disputes surrounding Idaho’s Defense of Life Act and its exceptions.

The court’s liberal wing – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – vigorously suggested that the state law conflicts with the EMTALA, which requires emergency room physicians at hospitals nationwide that receive Medicare funds to offer "stabilizing treatment."

Several of the court’s conservatives – Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – voiced support for Idaho’s law and each state’s ability to set its own medical regulations, including what types of treatments should be allowed. EMTALA makes no explicit mention of abortion.

Much of the debate during oral arguments, which stretched two hours, centered on whether there is truly any conflict on the ground in Idaho between state law and EMTALA in practice.

Idaho argues there is no conflict and that women facing emergency situations can receive the care they need, including abortions, if medically necessary.

The Biden administration insists women are having to be transferred out of state in precarious health conditions in order to get a medically-necessary abortion.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett appeared more conflicted about how to resolve the dispute. Each expressed concern about the ability of doctors to perform an abortion if critically needed to protect a woman from serious harm but also wrestled with Idaho’s assertion that such options are already in place.

The administration argues the federal law explicitly makes clear that state laws are overridden to the extent they "directly conflict with a requirement" of EMTALA.

"EMTALA requires us as physicians to act in an emergency to preserve health – even the health of an organ system, like the reproductive system, as one example," said Dr. Jim Souza, chief physician executive at Idaho's St. Luke's Health System. "Idaho's law only allows action to save life, not preserve health."

Idaho contends that Congress enacted EMTALA solely to prevent hospitals from turning away indigent patients or otherwise discriminating against patients on the basis of their condition or status.

"EMTALA leaves the question of specific treatments for stabilizing care to state law," Idaho told the court in its brief. "Indeed, EMTALA treats medical emergencies faced by the unborn child of a pregnant woman no differently than emergencies faced by the mother herself."

The state also argues that the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health – overturning constitutional protection for abortion – explicitly returned the issue to the states. It accuses the Administration of trying to "reimpose a federal abortion requirement."

"The purpose of the law is to protect the life of mothers and their unborn children," said Dr. Ingrid Skop, a Texas-based OBGYN and vice president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, an anti-abortion group. "All states allow doctors to use reasonable and good faith judgment on when to intervene. Abortion is rare, if ever, necessary" in an emergency.

The stakes in the case are significant.

"If the court sides with Biden, it would be incredibly troubling and a sweeping precedent for them to set," said Katie Daniel, state policy director for SBA Pro-Life America.

Major American medical organizations have warned that state abortion bans without exceptions for a pregnant woman's health could lead some women to experience lasting harm.

"Before the law, we practiced medicine to preserve the mom's health and future reproductive capability. Since then, there's been a lot of second-guessing and hand wringing," said Souza, "Is she sick enough? Is she bleeding enough? Is she septic enough for me to do an abortion and not go to jail or lose my license?"

Hospital groups have reported increased difficulty hiring OBGYNs and emergency room physicians in states like Idaho because of potential liability from strict abortion laws with few exceptions.

"This case could radically alter how emergency medicine is practiced in this country," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, an ACLU attorney supportive of abortion rights.

"For nearly 40 years, EMTALA has required every hospital with an emergency department that takes Medicaid funds to provide stabilizing treatment to any individual who needs it regardless of where they live," she said. "No state law can force hospitals to provide a lesser standard of care. But now the court is deciding whether states can override that."

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) -- Half of the country now has state laws that require financial literacy for high schoolers, teaching them the ins and outs of balancing a checkbook, opening a bank account and more.

Some educators and elected officials, like Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, are calling for such programs to be taught nationwide.

Lamont, who pushed for the program in his state last year, spoke with ABC News Live's Linsey Davis Tuesday about the issue.

ABC NEWS LIVE: So give us a sense, one year later: Has the requirement made a big difference?

GOV. NED LAMONT: We're just getting started, but it's going to be a requirement in all of our high schools to have the credit. You and I took economics maybe some years ago. Me, back in the Ming Dynasty, was microeconomics. [It was] not very relevant. Today we want people to have the basic skills they need to live, be it take out a bank loan or a mortgage, balancing the checkbook, credit card overpayment, draft fees, [and] basics of life.

ABC NEWS LIVE: So our government could probably benefit from this. Balancing the checkbook, not over-drafting. All of that. What do you say to those who argue that this is important but shouldn't be a requirement?

LAMONT: I think what is necessary to live in the 21st century should be a requirement. And we've been teaching economics, as I joked, [in] a variety of different ways over the last 100 years. But making it relevant to people's lives makes education come to life, and that's what we're trying to do.

ABC NEWS LIVE: Congress just hosted its annual bipartisan financial literacy fair on Capitol Hill. So there's an obvious eagerness for this in Washington. Is there a push for a national adoption of this as a requirement for high schoolers, and do you think there should be?

LAMONT: I think it makes pretty good sense. If you want to give us another year to see how it works out and how we're really making things happen, then come to Connecticut. We'll tell you what we got right and what we got to work on.

ABC NEWS LIVE: As governor of a state, you've pushed for regulation of social media in our classrooms, talking about the distraction it poses to children. You brought up TikTok, in particular in your last State of the State address, and the app could very well be banned soon due to legislation on Capitol Hill, as you well know. You've said a national ban would be a "slippery slope." How so?

LAMONT: I think when you start telling people what they can watch or what they can't watch, that could be a slippery slope. I would be very careful about that. But Linsey, what we've done in Connecticut, I recommend it to all of our superintendents. Let's get the smartphones out of the schools, or at least out of the classrooms. And we're coming up with a policy there that superintendents can act on, where you maybe drop your iPhone into a Yondr pouch on your way into the school, and you pick it up at the end of the day. In the meantime, you listen and actually interact with your fellow students.

ABC NEWS LIVE: Interaction with fellow students. What a novel idea there. But I am curious, do you think that TikTok poses a security threat?

LAMONT: I think potentially it does. And it's not necessarily by a foreign government, but ByteDance, which has major American investors in it, as you probably know. You know, there is a risk there. I rely upon the intelligence community. I just say I want to be very careful before you abridge people's First Amendment rights, [and] what they can say and what they can do. We do that carefully.

ABC NEWS LIVE: Understood. I am curious, would you disagree with the president if he were to sign legislation banning it?

LAMONT: No, I think I'd follow his lead on that. He has more of the intelligence briefings than I do. I would just say be careful. Our freedoms are often abridged in the name of national security. Be careful.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Against the backdrop of a divisive 2024 presidential campaign, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will take up the monumental question of whether a former president turned presumptive GOP nominee can be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to stay in power after the last election.

The case, Donald J. Trump v. United States, presents an unprecedented constitutional quandary for the court brought about by equally unprecedented actions by former President Donald Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Joe Biden by a margin of seven million popular votes.

The outcome could determine whether Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts pressed by special counsel Jack Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn the electoral vote count certifying Biden's victory.

Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, is seeking to quash the case on the claim that as a former president he enjoys "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution for any "official acts" during his tenure. He is the first American president -- current or former -- to ever face criminal charges.

"The President cannot function, and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office," Trump's attorneys wrote in their opening brief to the high court.

"Denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents," they argued.

Two courts have resoundingly rejected the former president's immunity arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

"Former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the panel wrote. "Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct."

The appeals court warned that if Trump's constitutional theory were accepted, it would "collapse our system of separated powers" by putting a president above the law.

Smith, the special counsel, argues in his brief to the high court that Trump's assertion lacks any historical precedent and undermines the founders' vision of a presidency restrained in power.

"The effective functioning of the presidency does not require that a former president be immune from accountability for these alleged violations of federal criminal law," he wrote the justices. "To the contrary, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law -- including the President."

A trial date in Smith's federal election case against Trump was initially set for March 4 in U.S. District Court but was delayed awaiting a final decision by the Supreme Court. A ruling on the immunity claim is expected before July, as soon as mid-May.

The justices could uphold the appeals court decision in its entirety, clearing the way for a trial this summer, or they could take a middle-road approach, spelling out what actions qualify for immunity and which do not, sending the case back to lower courts for further proceedings. Such an outcome could rule out a trial before the November election.

Most legal analysts say it's highly unlikely the Supreme Court -- with its conservative majority and three Trump appointees -- will endorse Trump's sweeping assertion of "absolute immunity." In a 2020 decision, the same court rejected a similar immunity claim by Trump in his attempt to reject a grand jury subpoena for his tax returns.

A majority of Americans (51%) think the federal indictment of Trump related to Jan. 6 and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election is very serious, according to an ABC News/Ipsos poll from late last year.

Just over half of respondents -- 52% -- think Trump should have been charged with a crime in this case, while 32% said he should not have been. At the same time, 46% think the charges against Trump are politically motivated, while 40% do not, per the poll conducted using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel.

Trump's legal team has argued that the impeachment process is the only check on a president's conduct allowed by the Constitution, even as they concede that a president who is impeached, convicted and removed from office could subsequently face criminal prosecution for the same acts.

Trump was impeached by the House in 2021 over his efforts to overturn results of the 2020 election but later acquitted by the Senate after he had left office. The former president argues that his actions were part of a legally legitimate effort to ensure election integrity.

Smith insists former presidents have never been immune from prosecution and have always been aware of the potential for prosecution. He cites in court briefs the case of former President Richard Nixon accepting a pardon from President Gerald Ford as evidence that Nixon believed prosecution was possible after he had resigned.

While Supreme Court precedent has limited civil litigation against presidents, the special counsel contends criminal matters are different -- and that there are layers of legal safeguards in the system to prevent partisan harassment and protect due process.

"Even if liability could not be premised on official acts," Smith wrote the justices in his brief, "the case should be remanded for trial, with the district court to make evidentiary and instructional rulings in accordance with this Court's decision. Petitioner [Trump] could seek appellate review of those rulings, if necessary, following final judgment."

After oral arguments on Thursday, the justices will vote during their weekly private conference and begin drafting opinions. They are expected to be released before the court's term ends in June.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- When the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would decide whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in the federal government's election subversion case, many court experts considered it a major win for his team -- because it means a trial could be substantially delayed again or even not happen at all.

The timing of a decision is critical. For example: What if it doesn't allow a trial to start until just before the November election, in the heat of the 2024 campaign? What happens if Trump wins the presidency before any verdict is reached?

The justices will hear oral arguments in the case on Thursday. The central question before the court is "whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

In taking up the case, the court moved faster than it typically does, experts told ABC News, but history shows it could have acted an even more expedited basis -- as it has in other high-stakes cases.

"The court's decision to take the appeal and not move as quickly as it could have surprised and disappointed many court watchers," Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News. "Its decision obviously helps to delay at least one criminal case against former President Trump."

Experts point to how the court handled Bush v. Gore, when the justices intervened to end a ballot recount and effectively hand George W. Bush the presidency in the 2000 election. That case was argued and decided within four days, and they note that, while it's possible the court could act in a similar way in Trump's case, they say that's not likely.

It's more likely, they say, that a decision will come when the court's term ends in late June or early July.

"The longer it takes for the court to decide, the more it helps Trump," Gerhardt said. "If it says he is immune to the prosecution, that will be the end of it. Otherwise, it will be a race to get the trial started if not finished before the election."

In United States v. Nixon, the Watergate scandal tapes case, the Supreme Court heard arguments July 8, 1974, and issued its opinion rejecting his claim of executive privilege 16 days later.

If the justices acted on a similar timeline in Trump's case -- and rejected his immunity claim -- a trial could likely still happen before Election Day, according to Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee.

"A 16-day window is ample time for the case," Eisen said on a call with reporters in late February. "Even if they take a little longer, this case can still be litigated. Judge Chutkan has said she will treat Donald Trump like any other criminal defendant."

Trump's election subversion trial was originally set to begin March 4 by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan but she has frozen the case while Trump appeals the immunity question. Two lower courts have rejected his claim, including a unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Anticipating Trump's strategy to try to delay, Smith asked the Supreme Court in December to immediately take up the case. The justices rejected his request, allowing the federal appeals court to hear the matter first.

After eventually agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court allowed almost two months before hearing oral arguments.

"There is a sense in which this feels like a very middle of the road position," said Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo School of Law and a former federal prosecutor. "What I read between the lines is some compromise among the justices about the need to take the case, the urgency of the case and what they see as being necessary or how broadly they think they need to weigh in."

"If this trial does not come to pass, it will be on the Supreme Court and all of the Supreme Court if they capitulate to the MAGA-wing of the court," Eisen said.

What happens next?

After the Supreme Court hears from both sides, the key question becomes how quickly it hands down a decision and its scope.

When Judge Chutkan first paused the trial due to Trump's appeals on immunity, there were 88 days left until it was scheduled to begin. She previously indicated that if she is allowed to resume the case, she would give Trump's team the same length of time to prepare.

So, if the Supreme Court waits until the end of its term make a decision, a trial might not begin until early fall when the campaign is in full swing -- or possibly even after the election.

Trump already is claiming election interference and political prosecution, accusing Smith of bringing the case to get him off the campaign trail. He and his allies are likely to ramp up those attacks if the trial begins after the GOP convention in July.

In a court filing in February, Smith told the justices there is a "national interest" in seeing the charges against Trump "resolved promptly" because they "strike at the heart of our democracy," although he didn't mention the November election.

Roth, the Cardozo Law School professor, said if Trump wins the election and takes office in January -- and the trial has not yet concluded -- he could direct his attorney general to end the prosecution. If he wins and takes office after already being convicted, he could in theory pardon himself -- something unprecedented, and, experts say, would likely be challenged.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Senate on Tuesday night passed a package to deliver $95 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan -- a bipartisan win months in the making.

The package was approved 79-18.

Thirty-one Republicans joined with 48 Democrats to pass the legislation. That's nine more Republicans than supported the aid package when the Senate last considered it in February.

Two Democrats -- Sens. Merkley and Welch -- as well as independent Sen. Bernie Sanders voted against the legislation along with 15 Republicans.

The legislation includes four bills that passed in the House over the weekend with bipartisan support.

The package now heads to President Joe Biden's desk where he said in a statement he expects to sign on Wednesday.

"[A] bipartisan majority in the Senate joined the House to answer history’s call at this critical inflection point," Biden said in a statement. "Congress has passed my legislation to strengthen our national security and send a message to the world about the power of American leadership: we stand resolutely for democracy and freedom, and against tyranny and oppression."

"I will sign this bill into law and address the American people as soon as it reaches my desk tomorrow so we can begin sending weapons and equipment to Ukraine this week," his statement continued. "The need is urgent: for Ukraine, facing unrelenting bombardment from Russia; for Israel, which just faced unprecedented attacks from Iran; for refugees and those impacted by conflicts and natural disasters around the world, including in Gaza, Sudan, and Haiti; and for our partners seeking security and stability in the Indo-Pacific. I want to thank Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, and all of the bipartisan lawmakers in the Senate who voted for this bill. This critical legislation will make our nation and world more secure as we support our friends who are defending themselves against terrorists like Hamas and tyrants like Putin."

The package provides roughly $26 billion for Israel, currently at war with Hamas in Gaza; as well as $61 billion for Ukraine and $8 billion for allies in the Indo-Pacific. A fourth bill would force a U.S. ban of TikTok if its Chinese parent company doesn't sell it; impose sanctions on Russia, China and Iran; and seize Russian assets to help Ukraine rebuild from the war's damage.

"A lot of people inside and outside the Congress wanted this package to fail. But today, those in Congress who stand on the side of democracy are winning the day," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said after the Senate voted to pass procedural votes on Tuesday afternoon. "To our friends in Ukraine, to our allies in NATO, to our allies in Israel, and to civilians around the world in need of help -- help is on the way."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, during a fulsome press conference after the procedural vote, said he believes his party is beginning to beat back the trends of isolationism he has fought against. He conceded that the isolationist streak in his party is not gone, but he said he believes progress has been made.

"If you're looking for a trend I think it's a trend in the direction that I would like to see us go, which is America steps up to its leadership role in the world and does what it needs to do," McConnell said.

He counted the groundswell of GOP support a win.

"I think we've turned the corner on this argument," he said, adding, "I think we've turned the corner on the isolationist movement. I've noticed how uncomfortable proponents of that are when you call them isolationists. I think we've made some progress and I think it's going to have to continue."

Schumer applauded the bipartisan approach to pass this legislation -- including his work with McConnell.

"Leader McConnell and I, who don't always agree, worked hand-in-hand and shoulder-to-shoulder to get this bill done. Together we were bipartisan and persistent," Schumer said.

What's next?

Congress' passage helps provide aid to ally countries -- including Ukraine, which can't win its fight against Russia without the funding, America's top general in Europe said earlier this month.

"They are now being out shot by the Russian side five to one. So Russians fire five times as many artillery shells at the Ukrainians then the Ukrainians are able to fire back," U.S. European Command's Gen. Christopher Cavoli told the House Armed Services Committee. "That will immediately go to 10 to one in a matter of weeks. We're not talking about months."

The outcome of the war could hang in the balance, according to Cavoli.

"The severity of this moment cannot be overstated. If we do not continue to support Ukraine, Ukraine could lose," he said.

In anticipation of the bill passing, the Biden administration has worked up a roughly $1 billion military assistance package for Ukraine with the first shipment arriving within days of approval, a U.S. official told ABC News on Tuesday.

The package will include desperately needed artillery rounds, air defense ammunition and armored vehicles, according to the official. The weapons and equipment will be drawn from existing U.S. stockpiles under presidential drawdown authority (PDA).

It has been more than a year since Congress approved new aid for Ukraine in its fight against Russian invaders. The war has intensified in recent weeks, as more Russian strikes break through with Ukraine's air defenses running low.

President Biden spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday to reiterate U.S. support for the nation. Zelenskyy said he was "grateful" to Biden "for his unwavering support for Ukraine and for his true global leadership."

The Ukrainian leader commended House Speaker Mike Johnson -- whose position on Ukraine aid evolved from also requiring changes to border and immigration policy to working with Democrats to pass the latest bills -- and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

Biden first requested more assistance for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific last fall. The Senate passed a $95 billion bill in February, but the legislation faced a logjam in the House as a coalition of Republican hard-liners grew opposed to sending more resources overseas without addressing domestic issues like immigration.

At the same time, GOP leaders like Johnson echoed those concerns and had pushed for major changes to immigration policy, though a sweeping deal in the Senate to tie foreign aid to such changes was opposed by former President Donald Trump and rejected by conservatives as insufficient.

Then, pressure increased on lawmakers to pass aid to overseas allies after Iran's unprecedented attacks on Israel earlier this month, in retaliation for a strike on an Iranian consular complex in Syria, and as Russian forces continue to make offensive gains.

Speaker Johnson, once opposed to more aid for Ukraine, said last week he was "willing" to stake his job on the issue as an ouster threat looms from fellow Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie and Paul Gosar.

Johnson earned bipartisan praise for the reversal.

"He tried to do what the, you know, say the Freedom Caucus wanted him to do. It wasn't going to work in the Senate or the White House," Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, said on ABC's This Week Sunday. "At the end of the day, we were running out of time. Ukraine's getting ready to fall."

Johnson, McCaul said, "went through a transformation" on the issue.

After the procedural votes' passing, Schumer even praised Johnson.

"I thank Speaker Johnson, who rose to the occasion, in his own words, said he had to do the right thing despite the enormous political pressure on him" Schumer said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.