(NEW YORK) -- New York City Mayor Eric Adams on Sunday defended the police crackdown on campus protests there, which have become the epicenter of demonstrations around the country against the Israel-Hamas war.
"We want to ensure we protect democracy and the right to protest," Adams told ABC News "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl, "but we have an obligation that when those protests reach the point of violence ... we have to ensure that we use a minimum amount of force to terminate what is perceived to be a threat not only by our intelligence, but also the school and college officials."
Adams said that the large-scale police intervention seen so far in the city, most notably at Columbia University, resulted from communication between the police and school officials.
"We knew we had to get permission unless there's imminent threat to life, or severe threat to property," he said, referring to Columbia, adding, "We were not going to overstep our legal authority."
Pressed by Karl about criticism, including from some other Democrats, that the response to protesters was disproportionate and improper on school grounds, Adams said, "One has the right to have his or her opinion, and I respect that. ... And I have an obligation and responsibility to ensure the city is safe."
New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman wrote last week that "the militarization of college campuses, extensive police presence, and arrest of hundreds of students are in direct opposition to the role of education as a cornerstone of our democracy."
But Adams, on Sunday, suggested that the protests had become problematic -- despite what many of the student organizers have said is their goal of criticizing Israel's government and denouncing the treatment of Palestinians.
"This has left a point of advocating for a particular item, and as I say over and over again, there's a real attempt to radicalize our young people," he said, "and when you look at some of the information and some of the people who were there, we need to be clear that we cannot take this lightly."
Despite the arrests and violent disruptions on campuses, Adams encouraged universities to stick to planned graduation ceremonies as it is a "wonderful experience."
"I don't think we should allow anything to get in our normal way of life," he said. "We will do our job."
"And if the institution decides to graduate their students and celebrate a beautiful experience for their families, we will make sure it's done in a peaceful manner," he continued.
New York City officials have alleged that the protests have been "co-opted" by professional "outside agitators," a charge that pro-Palestinian supporters have rejected.
When Karl questioned that characterization, Adams stood by it.
Overall, officials say that more than 2,400 protesters both affiliated and not affiliated with educational institutions have been arrested in connection with the ongoing campus protests across the U.S.
"Anyone can protest in the city, but when you are on college grounds and you do not attend that college, you are an outsider," Adams said. "And then when you train people to do disruptive things, you are an agitator."
"So I'm not trying to be politically correct," he said. "I'm trying to be correct for the city of New York as we make sure this continues to be safe."
(WASHINGTON) -- Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton on Sunday pushed for an even stronger police response to pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses across the country as both arrests and controversy grow around the demonstrations against Israel's military campaign in its war with Hamas in Gaza.
Speaking to ABC News "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl, Cotton said school leaders, whom he sought to paint as biased by politics, should have sent in law enforcement "the very first day they set up their tents."
"Where were the liberal administrators and liberal politicians sending in the police on the very first day? We should not have tolerated this for a moment," he said.
In recent weeks, student encampments protesting the war in Gaza and the civilian death toll there have sprung up on campuses from coast to coast.
That has sparked a wave of media attention and varying reactions from school and state officials, some of whom have sought to negotiate with the demonstrators while noting a balance between the right to protest and the needs of other students and limiting violence and hate speech.
In some instances, police have been brought in to clear out the demonstrators, including at Columbia University, where arrests were made after students and other protesters occupied the school's Hamilton Hall.
However, encampments are still intact at several other universities.
Cotton, who stirred backlash in 2020 by calling for the military to curb "looting" and "rioting" during widespread civil unrest, took a dim view of the campus movement on "This Week" -- deriding the demonstrators, whom he labeled "fanatics," and dubbing each encampment a "little Gaza."
Pressed about that pejorative by Karl, Cotton said, "Well, they call themselves the Gaza solidarity encampments -- they're little, they're little Gaza."
"It seems like you're mocking the situation in Gaza," Karl pushed back.
Cotton clarified that he wasn't referring to the dire conditions for civilians in Gaza or the deaths there, all of which he blamed on Hamas, which sparked the current war with Israel after an Oct. 7 terror attack. Cotton said his label referred to the decisions of protesters, many of whom are students.
"They deserved our contempt. They also deserved our mockery," he said.
Though Cotton conceded that protesting by itself is, with some exceptions, a protected form of activity, he insisted that what was being seen on campuses had gone too far.
He denounced reports of violence and "vile, antisemitic hate" and singled out, for example, how a George Washington statue was covered in pro-Palestinian garb at one school.
"You can protest all you want. If you want to make a fool of yourself and support a terrorist group, you can do that," he said, adding, "But you are not allowed to violate campus rules and policies and break the law."
Many of the groups behind the pro-Palestinian demonstrations have rebuked antisemitism and sought to distance themselves from any such conduct, saying it's not representative of their goals or values in calling attention to the civilian toll in Gaza.
In his "This Week" interview, Cotton, a supporter of a muscular U.S. presence abroad, also defended House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., for the recent passage of a foreign aid package that includes funds to Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine -- legislation that is expected to spark a vote on a resolution from firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., pushing for Johnson's ouster.
"About two-thirds of House Republicans said that they wanted to support Ukraine in one way or another even if they didn't support that specific piece of legislation. It was a much smaller majority that voted to cut off aid entirely. So, Speaker Johnson has about two-thirds of his entire conference behind them on that specific issue, and almost all of them behind him on the question of Israel or Taiwan," Cotton said after Karl pointed out that most House Republicans voted against the bill.
Cotton swatted away the idea of a more isolationist GOP, arguing that opposition to foreign aid is more centered around debates over logistics than principles.
"I think what you see among a lot of Republicans, they have legitimate and reasonable concerns about our defense industrial base's ability to support our own military, much less other countries' wars. I share those concerns. I think the way to do that is to invest more in the defense industrial base, but that's largely a practical difference about circumstances here in our defense industrial base," he said.
Israel's main cable provider halts Al Jazeera broadcasts, citing government ban When Karl raised various issues related to Donald Trump, the Republican standard-bearer, Cotton sought to play down certain differences with the former president including Trump's continued refusal to acknowledge the 2020 election wasn't marred by widespread fraud.
Cotton, who doesn't share Trump's rhetoric, instead pivoted to saying he agreed with Trump that certain parts of the 2020 race were "deeply unfair."
Asked if he would consider being Trump's running mate, Cotton waved away the discussion as a speculative "parlor game" and didn't answer directly.
"What Donald Trump is focused on is winning this election. What I'm focused on is helping him win and making sure Republicans win the Congress. When he's ready to make his decision about vice president, he will," Cotton said.
Karl asked if he agreed with Trump that the people being prosecuted for their alleged acts in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill riot were really "hostages."
Cotton contended that some participants who did not engage in violence had been unjustly placed in lengthy pretrial detentions but "people who were involved in that riot, who assaulted police officers or who defaced and damaged public property should face the legal consequence."
(WASHINGTON) -- In the nearly three years since President Joe Biden appointed Lina Khan as chair of the Federal Trade Commission, the government agency has taken on some of America's largest corporations, filing lawsuits or taking other actions to challenge Big Tech, Big Pharma and Big Business.
"The FTC has been squarely focused on making sure we're using all of our tools and authorities to protect the American people from illegal business practices," Khan told ABC News "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl in an interview that aired Sunday.
Tasked with enforcing the nation's antitrust laws and protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive business practices, the FTC under Khan has homed in on industry giants like Amazon, Meta and biotechnology company Amgen. But not every pursuit has been successful -- an attempt to block Meta from acquiring a virtual reality startup failed, for example -- and Khan told Karl that she believes there's still much more to do.
"In many ways it feels like our work is just getting started," she said, telling Karl that it "would be an honor" to be nominated for another commissioner term after her current term expires on Sept. 24.
A Yale Law School graduate and former staffer on the House Judiciary Committee, Khan is the first person of South Asian descent to lead the agency and, at 35, is also the youngest FTC chair.
The commission has taken a more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement under her leadership compared to decades past, but Khan said she's simply being the "law enforcer" the chair is meant to be.
"In many ways, we're undertaking a deeply conservative project, making sure we're going back to the roots of what the FTC is about, the actual text of the laws that Congress created, and making sure we're being faithful to the law on the books and the legal precedent," Khan said.
Some of Khan's critics include The Wall Street Journal editorial board, which last week published a piece titled "Lina Khan Wears Prada," criticizing the FTC's move to block a merger of two luxury fashion firms. The editorial headline seemed to be a reference to the 2006 film, "The Devil Wears Prada."
"I don't own any," Khan said, with a smile and a laugh, of the Italian fashion house, going on to defend the FTC's decisions on mergers. "Look, 98% of all deals in America go through without even a second question being asked by the American government. It's absolutely true that when we spot an illegal merger, we won't hesitate to act because if we don't do our job, the American people will lose out."
Khan has gained a reputation in her field as a fierce critic of Big Tech's dominance, and a piece she published about Amazon when she was a law student put her on the map.
That 2017 article, called "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," which was published in the Yale Law Journal and has been cited more than 2,000 times, argued Amazon was a monopoly that had "evaded government scrutiny in part through fervently devoting its business strategy and rhetoric to reducing prices for consumers."
In September, the FTC and more than a dozen states sued Amazon, alleging it engaged in illegal business practices that allowed it to "wield monopoly power."
"In what way is Amazon a monopoly?" Karl asked. "Because I can buy on Amazon, but I can also go down the street and I can buy at Walmart or I can buy at Target."
Khan said that Amazon has taken actions that ultimately mistreat customers.
"The fees that it charges to small businesses have dramatically increased over the last few years, so that now some small businesses have to pay 1 out of every $2 to Amazon. It's basically a 50% Amazon tax," she explained.
Israel's main cable provider halts Al Jazeera broadcasts, citing government ban "Our lawsuit also alleges that Amazon has been using a whole set of secret algorithms to quietly raise prices for consumers," she continued. "Our lawsuit alleges that if Amazon had not engaged in these illegal tactics, that would have allowed more rival online superstores to emerge, and that would be better for consumers who would face more price competition."
Amazon rebuked the lawsuits' claims after it was filed last year.
"The practices the FTC is challenging have helped to spur competition and innovation across the retail industry, and have produced greater selection, lower prices, and faster delivery speeds for Amazon customers and greater opportunity for the many businesses that sell in Amazon's store," Amazon said at the time.
Both Meta (formerly Facebook) and Amazon separately filed motions with the FTC requesting that Khan be recused from any decision related to their companies. She did not.
"Why did you not do that?" Karl pressed.
"The ethics laws primarily require recusal when you have some kind of conflict of interest," she said, like having stock in a company or a close family member who works for a company.
"But not a clear bias?" Karl pushed back. "I mean, you obviously had an opinion about Amazon before you took this job."
"I had done academic work. A lot of people that have the fortune of being appointed to these jobs come in through having done policy work," Khan said. "We're absolutely focused on enforcing the law without fear or favor. Well, we also don't want to kind of indulge, you know, requests that are not serious and that are being made in a frivolous way if there's no real conflict of interest."
For all the predictable critics, Khan also has fans spanning the political spectrum, from progressives like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to supporters of former President Donald Trump like Ohio Sen. JD Vance and Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz.
Her Republican supporters have been dubbed the "Khanservatives."
Their support, however, doesn't surprise Khan.
"Antitrust and anti-monopoly has a long bipartisan history in our country," she said. "and it's because there's long been a recognition that in the same ways that if you concentrate power in our political sphere, that can undermine people's liberties and freedoms; if you concentrate power in the economic sphere, that can also be a major threat."
Khan said that monopoly power attracts bipartisan scrutiny, so regardless of who wins the presidential election in November and who chairs the FTC next, she believes the agency's approach under her leadership will continue.
"The bipartisan concern that we see about monopoly power, the way we see concern about people's data being harvested and surveilled, the way we see concern about financialization of health care -- these are all issues that I think will continue to attract concern no matter who's in this job," she said.
(WASHINGTON) -- Locked in a tight race for the presidency, Donald Trump prevails in trust to handle most issues in a new ABC News/Ipsos poll, yet President Joe Biden scores competitively on key personal attributes -- leaving wide open the question of who'll prevail come Election Day, now six months away.
Excluding people who say they wouldn't vote, Trump has 46% support, Biden 44%, in this national survey of more than 2,200 adults. (Nearly all the rest say they'd pick someone else.) Among registered voters, it's Biden 46%, Trump 45%. Among likely voters, it's Biden 49%, Trump 45%, again not a significant difference.
A five-way contest doesn't change the picture in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos. This finds the race at 42% for Trump and 40% for Biden, with 12% for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 2% for Cornel West and 1% for Jill Stein. (That, of course, assumes Kennedy, West and Stein are on the ballot in all states, an open question.) Among registered voters in the five-way race, it's 42-42%, Biden-Trump, and Biden is a non-significant +3 or +4 points in likely voter models.
Kennedy gets 12% even though 77% of his supporters say they know "just some" or "hardly anything" about his positions on the issues. Notably, his supporters are more apt to be Republicans or GOP-leaning independents (54%) than Democrats and Democratic leaners (42%, a slight difference given sample sizes), and in a two-way race, they favor Trump over Biden by 13 points. That may explain why Trump attacked Kennedy as a stalking horse in social media posts last week.
Another result finds a potential risk for Trump in his current trial in New York on charges of falsifying business records to hide a payoff to a pornographic actress who says they had sex, which he denies. Eighty percent of Trump's supporters say they'd stick with him even if he's convicted of a felony in this case. But that leaves 20% who say they'd either reconsider their support (16%) or withdraw it (4%) -- easily enough to matter in a close race.
That said, a chief question raised by the survey is why Biden is competitive at all, given his substantial disadvantages. Just 35% of Americans approve of his job performance, with 57% disapproving; that's 2 points from his career low in approval in January and well below the level historically associated with reelection. Forty-three percent say they've gotten worse off financially under his presidency. An overwhelming 81% say he's too old for another term. Trump easily outpoints him in perceived mental sharpness and physical health.
Trump, moreover, leads in trust to handle six of 10 issues tested in the survey, with Biden ahead in just two. That includes, for Trump, the three most-cited issues in importance -- the economy, on which he has a 14-point advantage; inflation, again 14 points; and crime and safety, 8 points. He tops out with a 17-point lead in trust to handle immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border and leads by 8 points in trust to handle the war between Israel and Hamas and 7 points on "America's standing in the world." Biden's leads are on abortion access (+12, but comparatively low-rated as an issue) and health care, +5.
It's also the case that Biden lacks traditional Democratic advantages among young adults and Hispanic people, and he's about 20 points weaker among Black people under age 50 than among those 50 and older. But he and Trump run essentially evenly, 42-40%, among independents, who are swing voters in most presidential elections; Biden leads by 11 points among moderates; and among those who have held steady financially -- not gaining ground but at least not losing it -- he's up by a broad 66-21%.
Factors
Other factors help explain why, despite his weaknesses, Biden is in the game. He leads by 16 points on one important personal attribute, being seen as honest and trustworthy, and is about tied with Trump on two others -- representing your personal values (Biden +3) and understanding the problems of people like you (Biden +1). And while neither is popular, more people see Biden favorably as a person, 40%, than see Trump favorably, 33%.
Further, substantial numbers of Americans don't trust either candidate to handle the issues tested in the survey -- and among them, in most albeit not all cases, Biden leads. For instance, among the 14% who don't trust either to handle the economy (excluding nonvoters), Biden has 49% support, Trump 13%. (The rest mainly pick someone else.) In other examples, Biden leads by 45 points among those who don't trust either candidate on immigration and by 35 points among those who don't trust either on inflation.
On personal attributes, among those who don't think either candidate has the mental sharpness it takes to serve effectively -- about three in 10 adults -- Biden leads Trump by 63-15%. It's a similar result among those who don't think either has the physical health to serve. On the other hand, Trump leads by about as wide a margin among those who don't think either is honest and trustworthy.
Additionally, while eight in 10 see Biden as too old to serve another term, a smaller majority, 55%, says the same about Trump. And Biden wins 39% support even from those who say he's too old; Trump gets less support, 25%, among those who say this about him.
Nonetheless, results on "double-haters" are mixed. Among people who have unfavorable views of both candidates -- a more Republican group -- Trump leads Biden, 48 to 26%. But among those who disapprove of the work both have done during their presidencies -- a more Democratic group -- Biden leads with a similar margin, 48-21%.
In any case, it's certainly a match between unpopular figures. More people see Biden as a person unfavorably than favorably, 40-51%, favorable-unfavorable. But Trump's score, as noted, is worse, 33-58%. And 44% see Trump strongly unfavorably, 10 points more than say the same for Biden.
Trump pushes back with a better retrospective job approval rating, 44-50%, approve-disapprove, than Biden has today. And among Trump's supporters, 55% back him strongly, vs. 44% strong support for Biden among his supporters.
History
From a historical perspective, Biden has a hill to climb, but not an impossible one. In data since the Truman administration, three presidents with underwater approval ratings in the spring before Election Day won a second term -- Barack Obama in 2012, George W. Bush in 2004 and Harry S. Truman in 1948. Obama and Bush both bottomed out in this period at 47%, Truman at 36%, compared with Biden's 35% today.
Of course, historical precedents go only so far, as demonstrated by the 2022 midterms, when the Democrats fared much better than Biden's weak approval rating would have suggested.
Groups
Focusing on the two-way Biden-Trump race, results show the pull of partisanship and ideology. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats support Biden; 90% of Republicans are for Trump. (Nine percent of Democrats defect to Trump, while fewer Republicans, 5%, jump to Biden.) Independents, as mentioned, divide essentially evenly. In exit polls, the candidate who won independents has won the election in nine out of the last 12 presidential contests (all but in 2012, 2004 and 1976).
As reported Friday, liberals are more apt than others to say the United States is doing too much to support Israel and too little to help protect Palestinian civilians. Yet that doesn't appear to move many votes: 84% of liberals support Biden (vs. 8% for Trump). Across the spectrum, 82% of conservatives prefer Trump (vs. 10% for Biden). Biden leads among moderates, 50-39%, though that's weaker for him than in 2020.
Voters age 18-29 divide 43-48%, Biden-Trump; the difference is not statistically significant given the sample size, and it's a far worse result for Biden than the typical Democratic advantage in this group. The same is true for Hispanic people, dividing 46-42%. And while Biden has 74% support from Black people, this, too, is off the usual Democratic lead in this group.
Few Black people, 13%, back Trump; as many pick someone else. But there's a notable age gap: Black people age 50 and older support Biden over Trump by 85-5%. Among those younger than 50, it's 64-20%.
There's no significant gap between Black men and women. But there is a gender gap overall, with Trump up 9 points among men, Biden a non-significant 4 points among women. Among men aged 18-29, 54% back Trump, compared with 41% of women that age.
Biden is +6 points among seniors -- also non-significant, but a group Trump won by single digits in 2020. In rural areas, a GOP stronghold, Biden picks up 35% from women, vs. 25% from men. At the same time, in urban areas, a Democratic bastion, Trump wins 40% of men, vs. 30% of women.
There's a big gap by education, with Biden +19 points among college graduates, Trump +15 among non-grads. Trump has 79% support among evangelical white Protestants, a GOP mainstay and a key source of his strength in the primaries. And it's a 46-45% race in the seven expected swing states, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Likely voters
The poll tests a few versions of likely voters, e.g., those who say they are registered to vote or will register and are certain to vote in November; and those who fit that definition and also say they voted in 2020, if old enough to have done so.
Trump is +2 points among all adults (excluding nonvoters) while Biden is +4 among likely voters. While neither is a statistically significant difference, the reason for the Biden bump is that more educated people are more likely to vote, and, as noted, Biden leads Trump by 19 points among college graduates. Among all adults in the survey, 35% have a college degree. Among likely voters, it's 45%.
Other issues
The poll checked in on other issues; among them:
Support for abortion rights remains widespread: Americans by 66-32% oppose the U.S. Supreme Court decision that did away with the constitutional right to abortion and by essentially the same margin say their own state should allow access to abortion in all or most cases.
Biden's executive orders to forgive student loan debt get a mixed to negative reception: 42% say he's doing too much in this regard, 22% too little and 34% the right amount. Among those younger than 40, 30% say he's doing too much to forgive these loans; this jumps to 53% of those age 50 and older.
Thirty-nine percent call it highly important to them whom Biden picks as his running mate; 35% say the same for Trump. Overall, 54% say Biden should replace Kamala Harris as his choice for vice president; among Democrats, however, 76% say he should keep Harris. It's about the same among Biden supporters.
Eighty percent call undocumented immigration a problem nationally, including 54% who call it a major problem. Locally, in their own community, many fewer call it a problem, 46%, or a major problem, 22%. It's seen as a problem locally, and a major problem nationally, particularly by Republicans and conservatives.
Passage of a $61 billion aid package for Ukraine did not substantially impact attitudes on the subject. Thirty-nine percent of Americans say the United States is doing too much to help Ukraine, up 5 points from January but about the same as it was last fall. Twenty percent say the United States is doing too little; 39%, the right amount -- both essentially unchanged.
Methodology
This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® April 25-30, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,260 adults. Partisan divisions are 31% Democrats, 29% Republicans and 28% independents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points, including the design effect, for the full sample. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.
(NEW YORK) -- Jurors in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial on Thursday were played a recording found on Michael Cohen's phone, in which the two appeared to be discussing the alleged plan to pay off a former Playboy model who claimed to have had an extramarital affair with Trump.
The conversation, which took place on the morning of Sept. 6, 2016, was played Thursday as part of the testimony by expert witness Douglas Daus, who handles the processing of electronic devices for the Manhattan district attorney's office.
Cohen, Trump's former attorney, secretly recorded the conversation, which lasts about two minutes, during which he and Trump seem to discuss making a $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal to keep her quiet about the alleged affair, which Trump has denied ever took place.
"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend, David," Cohen can be heard saying on the call, appearing to refer to National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.
Cohen seemed to be speaking about a shell company he created to originally pay American Media Inc., the National Enquirer's publisher, before the deal went through.
On the phone, Cohen is heard saying he had "spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with funding" referring to the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization.
"So, what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?" Trump can be heard asking in the recording.
At one point during the conversation, Trump suggested making the payment in cash.
"No, no, no, no, no, I got it," Cohen responded.
American Media Inc. paid McDougal $150,000 to stay silent about her story in the summer of 2016. Trump did not end up reimbursing them, as they'd originally discussed, after Pecker backed out of the deal.
In the defense's cross-examination of Daus, Trump attorney Emil Bove attempted to raise doubt about the integrity of the material on Cohen's phone, suggesting it has been "subject to the risk of manipulation" somewhere in the chain of custody.
Bove also questioned Daus on why the recording abruptly ends.
Daus suggested that he heard in the recording that another call was coming in, but could not say with certainty why the call ended.
"You don't have firsthand knowledge of why it cuts off," Bove said.
During redirect, Daus told prosecutor Christopher Conroy he did not see any evidence of tampering with Cohen's phone.
"Did you see any evidence of tampering or manipulation on any of the data that you pulled related to the recording…," Conroy asked.
"I did not," Daus said.
The recording is expected to come up again during the trial, potentially when Cohen is called to testify.
(TEXAS) -- Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar and his wife were indicted Friday on charges of conspiracy and accepting nearly $600,000 in bribes from foreign entities, the Justice Department announced.
Prosecutors allege Cuellar and his wife, Imelda Cuellar, began accepting the roughly $600,000 in bribes beginning as early as December of 2014 from an oil and gas company owned by Azerbaijan's government as well as a bank headquartered in Mexico City.
While Cuellar's wife allegedly propped up sham front companies on the promise of providing consulting services to the two companies in order to launder the payments, she "performed little to no legitimate work under the contracts" all while Rep. Cuellar was promising to use his office for the benefit of Azerbaijan's foreign policy as well as influencing "high-ranking" officials in the executive branch to benefit the Mexico City bank, according to the indictment.
According to the indictment, Cuellar influenced a series of legislative measures regarding Azerbaijan's conflict with neighboring Armenia, inserted language favored by Azerbaijan into legislation and committee reports governing certain security and economic aid programs and consulted with representatives of Azerbaijan regarding their efforts to lobby to the U.S. government.
Cuellar once served as a co-chair of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, and repeatedly met with Azerbaijan officials, including the ambassador of Azerbaijan, Elin Suleymanov in that role.
As for the Mexico City bank, Cuellar is alleged to have accepted bribes in exchange for influencing federal regulation of the financial industry to benefit the bank and its affiliates, according to the indictment.
Also, the indictment said Cuellar allegedly "advised and pressured" executive branch officials regarding anti-money laundering enforcement practices that threatened the bank's business interests, supported legislation that would have blocked federal regulation of the payday lending industry and supported revisions to money-laundering statutes favored by the Mexican corporate conglomerate to which the bank was a member.
The Justice Department said Cuellar and his wife made their initial appearance Friday before a magistrate judge in Houston.
Cuellar his wife are each charged with the following offenses and if convicted, face maximum penalties as indicated: two counts of conspiracy to commit bribery of a federal official and to have a public official act as an agent of a foreign principal (five years in prison on each count); two counts of bribery of a federal official (15 years in prison on each count); two counts of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud (20 years in prison on each count); two counts of violating the ban on public officials acting as agents of a foreign principal (two years in prison on each count); one count of conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering (20 years in prison); and five counts of money laundering (20 years in prison on each count).
Earlier Friday, Cuellar claimed innocence.
"I want to be clear that both my wife and I are innocent of these allegations," Cuellar said in a statement. "Everything I have done in Congress has been to serve the people of South Texas."
Rep. Cuellar will take a leave as ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee while "this matter is ongoing," said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' spokesperson Christie Stephenson.
Rep. Cuellar is entitled to his day in court and "the presumption of innocence throughout the legal process," Stephenson added.
Cuellar, who represents Texas' 28th Congressional District along the U.S.-Mexico border, has been in Congress since 2005.
ABC News' Lauren Peller and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) -- Columbia University is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education following allegations of discriminatory treatment of Palestinian students and their supporters.
Palestine Legal, an advocacy group centered on Palestinian Rights, filed a civil rights complaint on behalf of four students and the student group Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine with the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Columbia University declined to comment on the pending investigation. Columbia University is one of eight schools that the DOE has opened an investigation into over alleged Title VI violations concerning shared ancestry discrimination since April 22, as protests nationwide escalated. This is at least the second investigation into shared ancestry discrimination since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
Shared ancestry cases refer to discrimination complaints based on ancestry, ethnic characteristics, and citizenship or residency of a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity -- this could include Islamophobia, antisemitism, and other forms of discrimination.
An investigation into a school does not imply that the OCR has made a determination on the merits of the complaint, according to the DOE's website.
The complaint from Palestine Legal hinges on the school calling for NYPD officers to enter the campus to help quell protests, a move that led to the arrest last week of over 100 students who were protesting Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
However, the complaint further details allegations of discrimination and harassment against Palestinian students, Arabs, Muslims, and students advocating for Palestinians – including a January attack on protesters with a "chemical-based weapon.”
The New York Police Department told ABC News at the time of the attack that protesters smelled a foul odor and began to feel nauseated, accompanied by headaches, during a protest Friday. Students for Justice in Palestine said several students were hospitalized or sought medical care following the incident.
Victims reported symptoms such as vomiting, nausea, chest and abdominal pain and headaches.
Students also say they have been the target of death threats, harassment for wearing keffiyehs or hijab, doxxing, stereotyping and differential treatment by high-ranking administrators.
Student protesters opposed to Israel's war in Gaza have been camping out on the Columbia University campus since April 17 to call for the university to financially divest from companies and institutions that “profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide and occupation in Palestine,” according to an online statement from the group Columbia University Apartheid Divest.
The encampment grew as University President Minouche Shafik attended a contentious congressional hearing about antisemitism on Columbia's campus.
One day after the hearing, Columbia asked students to leave their encampments. When students refused, Columbia University gave the NYPD the green light to clear the protesters and police in riot gear arrested more than 100 protesters for trespassing.
New York City officials, including NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban, said that protesters who were arrested "were peaceful" and "had no resistance whatsoever."
In a statement following the protests, Shafik said that the encampment "violates all of the new policies, severely disrupts campus life and creates a harassing and intimidating environment for many of our students."
Student protesters denounced the arrests, as well as growing suspensions faced by students who have been suspended in connection with pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
"We have knowingly put ourselves in danger because we can no longer be complicit in Columbia funneling our tuition dollars and grant money into companies that profit from death," Columbia University Apartheid Divest said in a statement.
Tensions have been high on college campuses nationwide since the start of the Israel-Hamas war on Oct. 7, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel. The Israeli military then began its bombardment of the Gaza Strip.
In the Gaza Strip, at least 34,000 people have been killed and more than 77,000 others have been wounded by Israeli forces since Oct. 7, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health.
In Israel, at least 1,700 people have been killed and 8,700 others injured by Hamas and other Palestinian militants since Oct. 7, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Since the first round of arrests, the encampment grew and pro-Palestinian protesters occupied a hall on campus, leading to further arrests.
"Students and outside activists breaking Hamilton Hall doors, mistreating our Public Safety officers and maintenance staff, and damaging property are acts of destruction, not political speech," said Shafik. "Many students have also felt uncomfortable and unwelcome because of the disruption and antisemitic comments made by some individuals, especially in the protests that have persistently mobilized outside our gates."
Columbia University has continued to face backlash from the several sides of debate surrounding the Israel-Gaza war, and is also facing litigation from a group of Jewish students who say that the university violated its safety protocols by allowing the encampment on school grounds.
Shafik has been under fire for Columbia's handling of antisemitism allegations on the college campus.
"Safety is paramount and we would do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of our campus," Shafik said at the congressional hearing on antisemitism on April 17. "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."
(VIRGINIA) -- A former government official in Virginia has been charged for allegedly submitting false tips to the FBI and accusing seven of his coworkers of participating in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, newly unsealed court records show.
Miguel Zapata was taken into custody Thursday after prosecutors accused him of using the FBI's anonymous tip website to report the allegations about his colleagues, several of whom were members of an unnamed intelligence agency.
According to his arrest affidavit, Zapata said his former colleagues were tied to groups like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys and even accused some of sharing classified information with the extremist groups in what he described as a coordinated plot to overturn the government.
When agents ran down the tips, they were easily debunked, according to the court records.
It's not clear why Zapata falsely targeted his former colleagues or why he is no longer employed by the U.S. government.
He has not yet entered a plea and was released on bond following a hearing before a federal magistrate judge in Washington, D.C.
A public defender listed as representing Zapata did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment.
Views divided on Israel-Hamas War. -- ABC News/Ipsos
(WASHINGTON) -- Nearly four in 10 Americans in a new ABC News Ipsos poll say the United States is doing too much to support Israel in its war with Hamas, up from about three in 10 in January. And more trust former President Donald Trump than President Joe Biden to handle the issue, though few call it critical in their choice of a candidate.
With protests raging across U.S. college campuses, views on U.S. policy are fragmented. About a third of Americans say the U.S. is doing too little to help protect Palestinian civilians caught up in the war -- yet a quarter say it's doing too much. The rest, 38%, see the U.S. effort in this regard as about right. Those results are little changed from January.
On Israel, there has been a shift: Early this year, 31% said the U.S. was doing too much to support Israel in its war with Hamas, while today 38% say so, up 7 percentage points. Twenty percent see too little U.S. support for Israel and 40% call this about right.
Ideological gaps are profound on both questions, with liberals far more apt than others to say the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel and too little to protect Palestinian civilians. Notably, given campus protests, views among young people are similar to those among all adults, and it's older people, not the youngest, who are more likely now than in January to say the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel in the war.
The survey was produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, with fieldwork by Ipsos. In terms of domestic politics, it finds that 37% trust Trump more than Biden to handle the issue; 29% trust Biden more, an 8-point gap. Notably, 33% don't trust either Biden or Trump to handle it.
Still, salience is low. Just fewer than half of Americans, 48%, say the war between Israel and Hamas will be an important issue to them in the November election, including 12% who say it will be one of the single most important issues. As is not uncommon with foreign affairs, it ranks a distant last in importance out of 10 issues tested in the survey.
Watch "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC Sunday morning for more results from the survey.
Groups
While protests are centered on colleges, it's ideology that most sharply differentiates attitudes on U.S. policy toward the Israel-Hamas conflict. Fifty-one percent of liberals say the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel in the war; that drops to 38% of moderates and 28% of conservatives. (It peaks, at 56%, among those who call themselves very liberal.)
On civilian casualties in Gaza, the inverse holds true, with even broader gaps. Fifty-nine percent of liberals (including 69% of those who are very liberal) say the U.S. is doing too little to help protect Palestinian civilians. That falls sharply to 29% of moderates and 17% of conservatives.
Partisanship is a factor as well. Forty-three percent of independents and 40% of Democrats say the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel; this falls to 29% of Republicans. Conversely, 47% of Democrats say the U.S. is doing too little to help protect Palestinian civilians. Thirty-six percent of independents share this view, falling off sharply to 15% of Republicans.
By age, regardless of the protests on college campuses, views on U.S. policy among adults aged 18-24 are largely consonant with those among all adults. Older people, though -- especially seniors -- are less apt than others to say the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel.
Change
The 7-point shift since January in views on policy toward Israel occurred chiefly in the political center and ideological center-left -- among independents and people who say they're "somewhat" liberal. Seeing the U.S. as doing too much to support Israel is up 13 points among somewhat liberals and 11 points among independents, while essentially unchanged among very liberals and conservatives alike. It's also up more sharply among college graduates (+11 points) than non-graduates (+5) and among women (+10) as opposed to men (+5).
Additionally, the view that the U.S. is doing too much to support Israel is virtually unchanged since January among 18- to 24-year-olds. It's among people aged 25 and older that this attitude has increased.
Methodology
This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® April 25-30, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,260 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points, including the design effect, for the full sample. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.
The survey was produced by Langer Research Associates, with sampling and data collection by Ipsos. See details on ABC News survey methodology here.
(WASHINGTON) -- The diverse group of names from politics to activists and entertainment include Biden’s 2020 Democratic primary opponents and former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Vice President Al Gore, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Jim Clyburn, Elizabeth Dole and recent Biden Climate Envoy and former Sec. of State John Kerry.
The “grandmother of Juneteenth,” Opal Lee, and Judy Shepard, the mother of Matthew Shepard who was abducted and brutally killed in 1998 because he was gay will also be honored.
Oscar award-winning actress Michelle Yeoh, swimming legend Katie Ledecky, “the most decorated female swimmer in history,” and Dr. Ellen Ochoa, the first Hispanic woman to go into space during a nine-day mission on the shuttle Discovery in 1993 will also be awarded the nation’s highest civilian honor.
The White House said in a statement that the people who were selected to be honored on Friday have “built teams, coalitions, movements, organizations, and businesses that shaped America for the better. They are the pinnacle of leadership in their fields. They consistently demonstrated over their careers the power of community, hard work, and service.”
(WASHINGTON) -- President Joe Biden on Thursday spoke from the White House on college protests happening across the nation in connection with the Israel-Hamas war.
"We've all seen images, and they put to the test two fundamental American principles," Biden said from the Roosevelt Room. "The first is the right to free speech and for people to peacefully assemble and make their voices heard. The second is the rule of law. Both must be upheld."
It marked the first time Biden directly addressed the issue since his brief comments to reporters on April 22, before the escalation of suspensions and arrests at several campuses. At the time, he said he condemned both antisemitic actions and those who didn't understand the plight of Palestinians in Gaza.
Biden has faced pressure from Republicans, who are seizing on party unity against university leaders and as staunch supporters of Israel to go after divided Democrats, to step up his response to recent events.
The president is well aware the protests present a real political liability for him, as Donald Trump also looks to capitalize on the moment, ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce reported.
Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, said on the campaign trail Wednesday that what was unfolding on college campuses was a "shame and Biden should speak out ... because nobody knows where he is."
"We've often faced moments like this because we are a big, diverse, free-thinking and freedom-loving nation," Biden said on Thursday. "In moments like this, there are always those who rush in to score political points. But this isn't a moment for politics. It's a moment for clarity."
"So, let me be clear. Violent protest is not protected, peaceful protest is," Biden said.
He called out vandalism, trespassing, forcing the cancellation of graduation or intimidating people as not constituting peaceful protest. People should be able to earn a degree, he said, without fear of being attacked on their campus.
"It's basically a matter of fairness," the president said. "It's a matter of what's right. There is the right to protest but not the right to cause chaos."
Biden also emphasized there is "no place for hate speech or violence of any kind," including antisemitism, Islamophobia or discrimination against Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans.
As he left the room, Biden responded to two questions shouted by the press.
When asked if the protests have made him reconsider his policies in the region, Biden said "no."
ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang asked Biden whether the National Guard should be activated, to which he also responded "no."
Biden has tried to balance strong support for Israel with sympathy for Palestinians killed and suffering in Gaza, but has faced criticism from some Democrats and many Republicans on his approach to the fraught issue.
"I understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions," Biden said on Thursday. "In America, we respect the right to protest, the right for them to express that. But it doesn't mean anything goes. It needs to be done without violence, without destruction, without hate and within the law."
(WASHINGTON) -- The Commission on Presidential Debates is pushing back against suggestions from the Trump campaign that it move its general debate calendar up -- standing firm in its decision to hold the first broadcast on Sept. 16, 2024.
In a statement released on Wednesday, a day after Trump senior campaign advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles released their own statement urging earlier debates, the commission correctly noted that its September event is the earliest it's ever conducted a debate. The previous record was set in 1980, when Republican Ronald Reagan and Independent John Anderson went head-to-head on Sept. 21.
Trump senior advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles on Wednesday evening made an additional statement on the commission saying its general debate schedule will remain unchanged this cycle.
The Trump advisers reiterated the campaign's willingness to work directly with the Biden campaign in organizing earlier debates, calling on "every television network" to host them "with or without the stubborn Presidential Debates Commission."
The commission noted that, "as it always does, the CPD considered multiple factors in selecting debate dates in order to make them accessible by the American public," including religious and federal holidays, early voting, and the dates on which individual states close their ballots.
The commission also pushed back against the Trump advisers' claims that "millions of Americans will have already cast their ballots" at the time of the first debate, noting that it "purposefully chose September 16 after a comprehensive study of early voting rules in every state," including taking into consideration North Carolina's Sept. 6 start to sending out mail-in ballots.
On Sept. 16, the day of the first debate, Pennsylvania voters can receive, complete and return ballots at their county boards of elections, CPD notes. Minnesota is one of the first states to offer in-person early voting, and voters there can begin to cast ballots on Friday, Sept. 20.
"The CPD has only one mission: to sponsor and produce general election debates that inform and educate the public. Our schedule is designed with that single mission in mind. The colleges and universities preparing to host these debates look forward to being part of an historic 2024 series of forums," the commission continued in its statement.
Following the first debate on Sep. 16 at Texas State University, the commission has announced plans to hold the second on Oct. 1 at Virginia State University and the third on Oct. 9 at The University of Utah in Salt Lake City. It plans to hold a vice presidential debate on Sept. 25 at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania.
Last week, President Joe Biden told Howard Stern on his Sirius XM show that he would be "happy" to debate former President Donald Trump, although he did not specify when. Trump and his campaign have used the moment to reemphasize their calls for earlier debates.
At rallies, before Trump speaks, the campaign directs supporters to turn their attention to the stage, where a second podium has been placed with a banner on it that says "Anytime. Anywhere. Anyplace," in reference to a previous statement from Trump regarding his willingness to face off against Biden.
Trump has previously attacked the commission, when in 2020 he claimed he would not accept any of their changes intended to enforce the rules and limit interruptions at the remaining 2020 presidential debates.
(WASHINGTON) -- President Joe Biden is facing pressure from Republicans to more forcefully speak out on the college protests unfolding nationwide in connection to the Israel-Hamas war.
The campus unrest has created a political opportunity for Republicans, typically fractured on a number of issues but united against university leaders and as staunch supporters of Israel, to hold Biden's feet to the fire as he navigates a divided Democratic caucus.
"When will the president himself, not his mouthpieces, condemn these hate-filled little Gazas?" GOP Sen. Tom Cotton said on Wednesday alongside other Republican senators at a news conference on Capitol Hill.
Biden himself last commented on the matter on April 22, when he said he condemned the "antisemitic protests" and also those who "don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians."
The White House announced on Wednesday that Biden will deliver a major speech on antisemitism next week at U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's annual Day of Remembrance Ceremony, but went to great lengths to avoid answering why he hasn't addressed what's played out at college and university campuses in recent days.
"The president is being regularly updated on what's happening," press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Wednesday during the daily briefing. "He is monitoring the situation closely. So is his team. And I would just add that no president, no president has spoken more forcefully about combating antisemitism than this president."
Jean-Pierre pointed to Biden's past comments condemning antisemitism, including his sharp denouncement of the clash between white nationalists and counterprotesters that occurred in Charlottesville in 2017, a moment he's said prompted him to run for president.
Jean-Pierre also indicated Biden has not spoken to officials from the universities, telling ABC News White House Correspondent Karen Travers she had no calls to read out or share.
Peppered with questions about what Biden thought about recent developments, including the New York Police Department clearing protesters from Columbia University and reports of violence at UCLA, Jean-Pierre deferred to local officials and reiterated Americans have the right to peacefully protest -- though she made clear occupying a building does not meet that definition.
Americans "have the right to peacefully protest, as long as it's within the law and that it's peaceful," she said. "Forcibly taking over a building is not peaceful. It's just not. Students have the right to feel safe, they have the right to learn, they have the right to do this without disruption ... They have a right to attend their commencement without feeling unsafe."
Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are ramping up their rhetoric this week on the protests and against the administration.
House Republicans on Tuesday announced a coordinated effort among committee chairs to investigate how university leadership has dealt with the protests. Notices have gone to the presidents of Yale, UCLA and the University of Michigan to appear before the Education Committee on May 23.
Senate Republicans joined in the criticism on Wednesday with a press conference of their own on the college protests, which they painted as "chaos."
The college protests had been largely peaceful for weeks, officials said, but intensified recently following arrests and clashes at some schools. Officials in New York said protesters unaffiliated with Columbia University have been escalating violence.
Pro-Palestinian students and protesters have called for their colleges to divest from funding Israeli military operations amid the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Some Jewish students have called the demonstrations antisemitic and said they fear for their safety.
Republican senators called for various responses, including that the federal government revoke student visas for overseas students involved in protests and that the Education Department investigate and possibly withhold funding to schools if they can't protect students.
"We're serious about this," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the chamber's top Republican. "We're going to take a look at what legislatively we might do to deal with this problem."
Biden was also a target of GOP remarks, some of whom suggested he was acting out of political calculus.
"Why are the university presidents and why is this president turning his head from the violent crimes going on?" said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan.
"He is catering to a handful of votes in Michigan," Marshall said. "He is totally politically driven rather than doing the right thing."
(WASHINGTON) -- A group of bipartisan members of Congress are demanding answers from Formula One owner Liberty Media after an American team backed by racing legend Mario Andretti was excluded from the most prestigious motor racing series in the world.
The FIA, which is Formula One's governing body, initially accepted Andretti Global's push to join the grid. However, Formula One Management (FOM), the commercial rights holder of the sport, denied Andretti's planned entry in the sport, stating the team could not be competitive in time for upcoming races. F1 cited several competitive concerns, and stated that "the presence of an 11th team would not, in and of itself, provide value to the championship."
In a letter to Liberty president and CEO Greg Maffei, the 12 U.S. representatives said they have "concerns with the apparent anti-competitive actions that could prevent two American companies, Andretti Global and General Motors (GM), from producing and competing in Formula 1."
The partnership between Andretti Global and General Motors would have entered into competition the only American-built and designed engine in Formula One, according to the letter.
The letter goes on to accuse FOM of possibly violating American antitrust laws, saying it is "unfair and wrong to attempt to block American companies from joining Formula 1."
Rep. John James, a Republican from Michigan where General Motors is based, is leading the fight. The letter is signed by 11 other representatives -- both Democrats and Republicans -- from Texas, North Carolina, Indiana and Florida.
The lawmakers sent three questions to Liberty Media, asking how the FOM's rejection fits with the requirements of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and what the rationale is for the dismissal of Andretti's team.
The letter asks, "The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlaws unreasonable restraints on market competition to produce the best outcome for the American consumer. How does FOM's denial of Andretti Global and GM, American-owned companies, square with Sherman Act requirements, since the decision will benefit incumbent European racing teams and their foreign automobile manufacturing affiliates?"
Andretti, a former Formula One world champion, met with members of the House on Tuesday to gain support for his team, and spoke at a press conference outside the Capitol on Wednesday to argue for his team's participation in the sport.
"We want to be able to represent the United States on a world stage in Formula One," Andretti said.
He added, "We have all the tools available, all we need is the absolute green light."
"America demands its due. If you want access to our markets, if you want access to our fans, you must grant access to our companies, you must grant access to our automotive workers, you must grant access to Americans themselves," Rep. James said.
Liberty Media declined ABC News' request for comment.
Formula One's fanbase in the U.S. has grown dramatically and Andretti's lobbying visit to Congress comes ahead of this weekend's Miami Grand Prix.
"Participation of all Formula 1 teams-including any American teams-should be based on merit and not just limited to protecting the current line-up of race teams. This is especially true considering Formula 1's growing presence in the United States, including three Grand Prix motoring racing events in Miami, Florida; Austin, Texas; and Las Vegas, Nevada," the representatives' letter states.
(WASHINGTON) -- South Dakota's two-term Republican governor, Kristi Noem, has been widely promoted as a contender to be former President Donald Trump's 2024 running mate, with Trump himself saying that she was on his shortlist as of February.
"I like her a lot. I think she's great. Kristi's done a great job," he said last year.
But it appears that Noem is now on increasingly unsteady footing in Trump's eyes, in part because of a series of odd controversies and choices, multiple sources familiar with her and with Trump's deliberations told ABC News.
The negative headlines began in earnest in March, when a slickly produced video Noem released personally promoting an out-of-state dentist spurred a lawsuit claiming deceptive advertising -- and the scrutiny increased in recent days with the revelation in Noem's upcoming memoir that she chose to shoot one of her young dogs because she claimed it was "untrainable" and exhibited aggression.
(Noem's office has not commented to ABC News on the legal complaint related to the promotional video and she hasn't filed a response in court yet, records show.)
Those episodes, combined with what one of the sources familiar with the running mate talks called Noem's "over-auditioning" and questions about her judgment, appear to have seriously weakened her chances, at this point, of joining Trump's ticket.
"To a person, everyone agrees she killed her chances, pun intended," said Sean Spicer, Trump's first White House press secretary, who remains in touch with the former president's team.
"The bigger issue politically speaking is why anyone thought putting this in a book was a good idea -- editors, agent, etc.," Spicer added, referring to the anecdote about Noem's dog. "It's like a job applicant saying unprompted they stole office furniture during an interview."
Noem's office declined to comment for this story.
She has been open for months about her desire to join Trump as his running mate. In September, she said she would do it "in a heartbeat."
She was also an early Trump endorser, leaned into his no-holds-barred fighter mentality in her state and said she would back him even he were to be convicted of charges he faces in New York over 2016 hush money that prosecutors claim was paid to conceal allegations of an affair from voters. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
For a while, sources said, Noem's style and presentation helped keep her name in the conversation as a potential running mate despite some concerns about a past controversy involving how her daughter got a real estate license (Noem said she did nothing wrong and her daughter defended her "good name") as well as scrutiny of aspects of her personal life and whether she'd adopted too hard-line of a policy portfolio to help expand Trump's general election appeal beyond the GOP base.
But the talk around Noem began to turn in March after she published an unusual video on X endorsing, by name, the work she received from a Texas dentist.
That drew a lawsuit from the consumer advocacy group Travelers United under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act, accusing her of "misleading" and "deceptive" advertising and claiming that Noem had a "financial relationship" with the dental practice and did not disclose such an agreement.
And then Noem stirred wider controversy through the weekend after an excerpt of her new memoir, set to be released next week, detailed her decision to kill her 14-month-old dog, Cricket, after Cricket demonstrated an "aggressive personality," including attacking a family's group of chickens, and being "out of her mind with excitement," Noem wrote in her book.
"I hated that dog," Noem wrote, calling Cricket "untrainable."
While the decision to personally shoot the dog was criticized by animal advocates as excessive and inhumane, Noem defended her choices and responded to the backlash by touting herself as a politically incorrect politician willing to be honest and make tough choices.
She said the decision to shoot Cricket was two decades ago.
"The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down. Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did," she wrote in a Sunday statement on X. "Whether running the ranch or in politics, I have never passed on my responsibilities to anyone else to handle. Even if it's hard and painful."
State law also makes it a misdemeanor for someone to keep a dog who "chases, worries, injures, or kills any poultry or domestic animal."
But Noem's explanation appeared to do little to allay growing worries about Noem among people around Trump.
"This is bad, this is dumb, she's disqualifying herself from the race, she clearly doesn't understand President Trump if she thinks doing these things that are garnering any type of media attention, whether it's negative or positive," said one person familiar, characterizing what they'd heard from Trump's aides..
This source, like others, asked not to be quoted by name in order to be more candid and because they weren't authorized to speak on the record.
"Multiple people in the Trump campaign said she's quickly disqualified herself," this person said of Noem.
Several sources who spoke with ABC News used the latest controversy to compare Noem to Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was a rising Republican star widely regarded as ill-prepared for the national spotlight when she joined the 2008 GOP ticket as the vice presidential nominee alongside John McCain.
"It's always been under the radar, this Sarah Palin comparison, and this feels like this could be the sort of thing that continues to make that comparison stronger," one former Noem staffer said. "It's a question around -- can you be taken seriously at the national level when stuff like this is distracting from that?"
Other sources suggested that Noem was never in serious consideration to be Trump's vice president and that all the media attention around her prospects was driven by her own allies -- but that even so, her apparent eagerness for the job rubbed Trump the wrong way.
"She's over-auditioning," said a second source who has discussed the VP pick with Trump himself.
"Trump doesn't like that. He doesn't like obsequiousness. He doesn't like ubiquitousness," this person said. "And the other thing is, if you're overly auditioning for VP, no matter who you are, you're not helping Trump with his current pile of needs."
Trump has a well-known habit of keeping his circle and opinions of his allies in flux. Top advisers have been shunned, then brought back into the fold.
Defenders also pointed out, like Noem did, that her dog Cricket was a working animal, not a typical pet.
And, some of the sources who spoke with ABC News warned, advisers' worries matter little compared to the opinion of Trump himself, who is said to be reluctant to permanently expel people from his orbit.
"Anybody who thinks they know who the next vice president of the United States is going to be, if their name isn't Donald John Trump, is talking without any knowledge. Donald Trump has already said there is no perfect candidate, and his criteria as he has publicly stated is that the person is ready to go on day one and, more importantly, they help him win," said a third source familiar with the so-called "veepstakes."
The Trump campaign itself issued a similar statement for this story, with spokesperson Brian Hughes saying that "anyone claiming to know who or when President Trump will choose his VP is lying, unless the person is named Donald J. Trump."
Beyond Noem, the longer list of contenders is thought to include Sens. Katie Britt, Ala., Marco Rubio, Fla., Tim Scott, S.C., and JD Vance of Ohio; Reps. Byron Donalds, Fla., and Elise Stefanik of New York; and Govs. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and Arkansas' Sarah Sanders.
And Noem's apparent fall in contention will likely do little to blunt the jockeying to join Trump's ticket this November, particularly as the summer's national party convention nears -- with sources saying that's exactly how Trump wants it.
"Trump is very, very careful through his VP pick to not broadcast to the world, 'Herewith is the heir to MAGA,'" said the person who has discussed the issue with the former president. "He would prefer that everybody fight it out, to earn it to be the heir to the movement that he's built."
.jpg)
