(PHOENIX) -- Two Republican state senators are expected to join Democrats in Arizona on Wednesday to pass a bill to repeal the state's Civil War-era near-total abortion ban -- three weeks after the state Supreme Court ruled the law was enforceable and one week after the House passed its own legislation to roll back the restrictions that have stirred widespread controversy.

GOP state Sens. T.J. Shope and Shawnna Bolick have both indicated they will support the Democratic-led repeal effort, giving Democrats the necessary votes in the chamber.

Notably, Bolick is married to one of the state Supreme Court justices who voted to reinstate the 1864 law, which supersedes a 15-week abortion ban that was enacted in 2022 and which blocks all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant woman.

While Republicans in the state Senate could delay the repeal vote with procedural hurdles, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, has expressed confidence the repeal bill will pass Wednesday.

Hobbs has also expressed frustration that the Legislature didn't take action sooner, noting that unless the courts impose a pause on the 1864 abortion ban, there could be a monthslong gap between when it goes into effect and then its repeal kicks in.

As of Tuesday morning, the office of Attorney General Kris Mayes said the effective date for the ban has been pushed from June 8 to June 27, after the state Supreme Court rejected a motion to reconsider. If the ban is repealed by the Legislature, that move wouldn't take effect until 90 days after the legislative session ends, which must be by June 30, meaning the repeal of the 1864 law may not take effect until around Oct. 1.

Some Democrats have acknowledged "uncertainty" that at least two GOP senators will vote for repeal on Wednesday "because the Republican Party has moved to the extremes since Trump first got elected," Sen. Priya Sundareshan, a Democrat, said on a call with reporters on Tuesday.

Conservatives in the state House initially resisted efforts to fast-track legislation to undo the ban.

"Legislatures are not built for knee-jerk reactions," state House Speaker Ben Toma said during one floor session.

He has also said that "abortion is a complicated topic -- it is ethically, morally complex. I understand that we have deeply held beliefs, and I would ask everyone in this chamber to respect the fact that some of us who believe that abortion is in fact the murder of children."

Anti-abortion groups have also rallied around the state Capitol seeking to urge lawmakers to stick by the ban. Arizona voter Desiree Mayes, a Republican, told ABC News last mont that "if you really if you really believe that babies in the womb are precious and valuable, they deserve equal protection," she said, explaining she doesn't support exceptions for rape or incest.

But Democrats, locally and across the country have called out the ban -- as have some Republicans who otherwise say they oppose abortion, like Donald Trump. Three Republicans in the state House ultimately joined the Democratic minority to repeal the law.

"This is a stain on history that this ban even exists -- from a time when the age of consent was 10, from a time when women didn't have the right to vote," Arizona state Sen. Eva Burch, a Democrat, previously told ABC News' Elizabeth Schulze.

Anti-abortion groups are encouraging supporters of the near-total ban to again gather on the Capitol grounds on Wednesday to pressure Republicans to stick together and not join Democrats. Meanwhile, Arizona for Abortion Access organizers continue to gather signatures for a potential ballot initiative that would go before voters in November and would protect abortion up to the point of fetal viability, around 24 weeks into pregnancy.

House Republicans are considering proposing their own ballot measures for November to counter the pro-abortion access initiative.

"We don't deserve to win the legislature if we cannot get it right on the basic tenets of our Republican platform, which is life," said state GOP Sen. Anthony Kern.

If the repeal bill does not pass the state Senate, Democratic Sen. Sundareshan said her party would "keep fighting" by reintroducing bills or motions.

"We'll do whatever is available to us to continue to fight to repeal this ban," she told reporters on Tuesday. "And we will continue fighting to repeal all of the bans that remain on the books."
 

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced Wednesday she will move ahead with her attempt to oust Speaker Mike Johnson from the House's top job -- though her plan seems doomed to fail.

The Georgia Republican, who first introduced a motion to vacate the speaker's chair in March, held a high-energy news conference outside the U.S. Capitol to say she will trigger a vote on the House floor next week.

"Mike Johnson is not capable of that job," she said. "He has proven that over and over again."

Greene, joined by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, aired a litany of grievances she has with Johnson, who she described as a Democratic speaker working against former President Donald Trump's agenda. At one point, Greene donned a red "Make America Great Again" hat as she addressed reporters and denied she was defying Trump, who hosted Johnson at Mar-a-Lago last month and said he was doing a "good job."

Greene and Massie were flanked by two blown-up poster boards featuring photos of Johnson embracing House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

She criticized Johnson for working across the aisle to avoid a government shutdown, passing a FISA extension and his recent ushering of $95 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan through Congress. She called them three "betrayals" against the GOP caucus.

Johnson released a short statement in response to Greene's continued threat to try to remove him.

"This motion is wrong for the Republican Conference, wrong for the institution, and wrong for the country," Johnson said.

Greene's press conference came one day after House Democratic leadership announced that if a motion to vacate Johnson is brought to the House floor for a vote, they would vote to table the effort -- effectively saving the speaker from ouster.

The motion to vacate is unlikely to succeed as most Republicans have joined Democrats in vowing to spike it.

Greene has already passed up several opportunities to force a vote on her motion, which she said she initially filed as a warning to Johnson.

Still, Greene said she wanted lawmakers to go on record on this issue.

"I think every member of Congress needs to take that vote and let the chips fall where they may," Greene said. "And so next week, I am going to be calling this motion to vacate. Absolutely calling it. I can't wait to see Democrats go out and support a Republican speaker, and have to go home to their primaries and have to run for Congress again having supported a Republican speaker."

Greene continued, "And I also can't wait to see my Republican conference show their cards and show who we are because voters deserve it."

Asked why Greene is pledging to move forward with this in defiance of Trump, Greene told ABC News' Correspondent Elizabeth Schulze, "We have to have a Republican majority in January and under Mike Johnson's leadership we are not going to have one."

Greene's threat against Johnson has been looming for weeks. She did not specify what day next week she would force a vote. Asked by a reporter why she was not bringing it to the floor on Wednesday, Greene said she was giving members time to prepare.

Massie said they were also giving Johnson time to think and suggested, again, that he resign. Johnson flatly rejected Massie's previous call for him to step down.

Johnson has defended himself against the threat by stating that he's doing his job within the confines of the narrowest House majority in history. In a recent interview with NewsNation, Johnson said he didn't believe Greene was "proving" herself to be a "serious lawmaker" and that he didn't spend much time thinking about her.

Asked for her response to Johnson's comment, Greene said she was "not into personal attacks." Massie came to her defense, saying she "is the most serious representative up here."

Johnson was elected speaker in October after three weeks of a leaderless House following the historic removal of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. The chaotic elections to replace McCarthy included unsuccessful runs from House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer.

Greene declined to name who she would like to see hold the gavel instead of Johnson.

"Anybody that's willing to fight for our agenda," she said. "Anyone who refuses to share the power with Hakeem Jeffries."
 

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Former President Donald Trump is back on the campaign trail, hitting two battleground states Wednesday after severe weather and his legal calendar have prevented him from holding his traditional campaign stops for weeks.

Trump will first campaign in Waukesha, Wisconsin, and then head to Freeland, Michigan, for an evening rally, packing his campaign schedule on his only regularly scheduled off day from court during the week.

It'll be the first time Trump has held a rally since the start of his criminal hush money trial in New York. The former president was scheduled to hold a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, two weeks ago but had to cancel it shortly before he was scheduled to take the stage due to incoming severe weather, and was only able to participate in a campaign fundraiser in Charlotte earlier that afternoon.

"I'm going to go into the icebox now and sit for about eight hours or nine hours," Trump complained Tuesday as he entered his third week of the trial. "I'd much rather be in Georgia. I'd much rather be in Florida. I'd much rather be in states that are in play."

Rather than campaigning in key swing states, Trump has instead been forced to make New York City his political stomping grounds, making statements outside the Manhattan courtroom and holding stops around the city in between his mandatory court appearances.

Trump stopped by a bodega in Harlem on April 16, two days into the trial, and a construction site in Manhattan last week to criticize Democratic policies in the area but also using it as a chance for reporters to shout questions at him. He has also allowed select media to capture arrivals from foreign leaders he has welcomed as he resides in Trump Tower for the duration of his court proceedings.

The choreographed stops highlight how Trump has had to balance being both a defendant and a presidential candidate.

Aside from the quick stops in New York and a couple of media interviews, Trump has had to rely on talking to reporters in the hallways of court; however, he has kept his statements relatively brief.

Judge Juan Merchan on Tuesday morning fined Trump a total of $9,000 for nine violations of the case's limited gag order, which prevents Trump from targeting potential witnesses and others involved in the case. Trump was ordered to pay the fine by the close of business Friday, and all nine of his social media posts cited by Merchan in his contempt of court ruling were removed.

Meanwhile, both President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and their respective spouses have been campaigning aggressively in key states like Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida.

Wednesday will be Trump's first time back in front of a large audience where, according to his campaign, he plans to attack Biden on the economy and crime, with Trump's legal battles at the forefront.

Wisconsin and Michigan are states Biden flipped in 2020 from Trump, and key states that remain close heading into 2024. According to 538's polling averages, Trump leads Biden in Wisconsin by close to 3 points, and just over a point in Michigan.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Jacksonville, Florida, on Wednesday, to focus on abortion access -- the same day the state's six-week abortion ban goes into effect.

Harris' trip comes a little more than a week after President Joe Biden also traveled to the state for a campaign event in Tampa, where he blasted the pending ban, which has some narrow exceptions.

Their reelection campaign has been seeking to focus on abortion as a defining issue of the 2024 race.

During Biden's Tampa event, the president called out former President Donald Trump by name, blaming him for the spread of abortion bans across the country following the overruling of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

"He's [Trump is] wrong, the Supreme Court was wrong. It should be a constitutional right in the federal Constitution, a federal right, and it shouldn't matter where in America you live," Biden said then, adding, "This is about women's rights."

Since the decision against Roe, handed down by the court's six conservative-leaning justices, including three named by Trump, 21 states have enacted restrictions or bans on abortion access.

Biden's remarks on abortion in Florida were also notable given his complicated relationship with the issue of abortion because of his faith as a devout Catholic.

Instead, the White House and campaign have largely used Harris as their primary messenger on abortion.

She launched a "Reproductive Freedom Tour" in January and quickly traveled to Arizona in April after that state's Supreme Court ruling upholding the 160-year-old, near-total abortion ban.

Ahead of Harris' trip to Florida, the Democratic National Committee held a call with reporters and southern Democratic leaders, including Democratic Party chairs from Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.

Democrats have been underlining the Biden campaign's attacks on Trump, connecting the former president to state bans and warning that if Trump is elected again, restrictions will become more widespread.

Democrats have also emphasized how abortion rights have come out on top every time voters have been casting ballots about it.

"We have seen reproductive rights initiatives win on every ballot since Roe v. Wade was overturned because the vast majority of Americans believe that reproductive health care decisions should be made by women and their doctors, not politicians," Florida Democratic Chair Nikki Fried said. "And as President Biden has repeatedly said, Trump and extreme Republicans don't have a clue about the power of women in America, but they will soon find out."

Trump, for his part, has celebrated the end of Roe but said abortion should now be determined by each state: "At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people. You must follow your heart or in many cases, your religion or your faith," he said earlier this month.

While he insists that he wouldn't sign a national abortion ban as president if Congress passes one, he also hasn't said that he would veto such a law if needed.

"I won't have to commit to it because it'll never -- No. 1, it'll never happen, No. 2, it's about states' rights," he told Time magazine in a recent interview. "You don't want to go back into the federal government. This was all about getting out of the federal government."

Harris' trip to Florida will mark her 12th visit to the state since being sworn in as vice president, a sign of how seriously her and Biden's campaign is about trying to win back Florida this election cycle following Trump's 2016 and 2020 wins.

Evan Power, the chair of the Florida GOP, contends that abortion isn't the issue to tip the state in the opposing party's favor.

"Democrats made [abortion] the No. 1 issue that they ran in on in Florida in 2022 and we won by 19% of the votes," Power previously told ABC News.

Referring to the six-week ban, Power has said, "This is what the voters sent their legislators to Tallahassee to deliver on and they did deliver on it. So I don't think there's a backlash coming in at all."

But national and state Democrats believe that the combination of the state's six-week abortion ban and an abortion ballot measure, which would allow access to the procedure up to viability -- considered to be at about the 24th week of pregnancy -- will give the party a stronger chance of flipping the state in November given that abortion access has been seen as a winning issue for Democrats since 2022.

"Our agenda, our coalition, and the unique dynamics this election presents make it clear: President Biden is in a stronger position to win Florida this cycle than he was in 2020," Biden's campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, wrote in a memo in early April, reflecting the cautious optimism among some in her party.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Associate Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer retired from the high court in 2022 but isn't finished prodding his former conservative colleagues to abandon what he sees as an aggressive tack to the right in how they interpret the law.

"Slow down. Period," Breyer, 85, said bluntly of his message to the court's majority in a wide-ranging interview with ABC News Live PRIME.

"You're there a long time," he added, addressing the three justices nominated by former President Donald Trump. "It takes three years, four years, five years, maybe, before you begin to adjust."

Breyer has been on an all-out media blitz with the release of his 10th book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism, an attack on the method of judging favored by his former colleagues that now threatens generations of established legal precedent.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to release major rulings in a historic series of cases this spring, Breyer pulls back the curtain on the embattled institution at a critical juncture and offers an optimistic assessment of its future. What follows is a selection of questions and answers lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

Some have described this as perhaps the most momentous Supreme Court term in a generation. They're taking on abortion, gun rights for domestic abusers, bump stocks, free speech on social media, presidential immunity. Any regrets you're not up there with them in the mix?

Well, of course, but, I mean, you reach a certain age, and that's the human condition.

What's the mood at the court right now?

I just had lunch with them. [The mood] has always been pleasant, and it's probably, as far as I know, still true.

Does the fact that you're still plugged in suggest you see a role for yourself behind the scenes?

Yeah, I think there is a role. So, how do I help? I write this book. That's how.

Parts of it seem like you're directly addressing the current court, the newest members of the court, and one of the messages I hear is 'slow down.'

That's right. And it's slow down, period. You're there a long time. It takes three years, four years, five years, maybe, before you begin to adjust.

Does this bunch of justices seem more eager than others you've studied?

No way to say. I say, Byron White said, that with every new judge, it's a new court. That's true.

You talk about the Dobbs case in the book. Justice Clarence Thomas, explicitly in his concurrence in Dobbs, called for the revisiting of some other decisions: same-sex marriage, contraception. Could those be at risk?

I tend to think, over time, they are less at risk than people worry about at the moment.

I take your optimism. But some might say you're a bit naïve.

I have had 40 years of experience.

Why are you so optimistic that members of this conservative majority will swing back the other way, come around and see the light, as you put it in the book, in the next three to four years?

I say there's reason for thinking they won't change, and reasons for thinking they will. They won't perhaps give up being a more conservative person than some other person. But they may modify a little. Why do I say that? Because I think they'll find [their approach] doesn't work.

You've chided the media publicly for using the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' to describe the justices. And I take your point about party politics. But why aren't these competing philosophies -- textualism versus pragmatism -- just proxies for Republican views and Democratic views?

That's a good question. Politics in the sense in which it was used when I worked for Senator Ted Kennedy: Are you a Republican? Are you a Democrat? Are you popular? Are you unpopular? How will this decision over here play into your general image? How will it over here play into more votes? – that's not there. But there are things there you see, which depending on the case, you might say 'politics,' though I don't think that's the right word. What Paul Freund, a great professor at [constitutional] law, said that politics enters the judiciary this way: No judge decides a case based on the temperature of the day, but every judge is affected by the climate of the season.

Next month marks 70 years since Brown v Board, that unanimous Supreme Court decision which overturned 'separate but equal' and outlawed racial segregation in American schools. Do you think that the vision of Brown has been fully realized?

No. But Brown did a lot of other things, like taking Jim Crow out of the law. You can't say it's nothing; it's pretty important. But there are a lot of other things, too, before people become really equal, and there's a lot of room for improvement there.

It is still striking how much time it took after the 1954 Brown decision for states to obey – for the Little Rock, Arkansas, schools to get integrated, for example.

President Eisenhower had to send troops. He sent the 101st Airborne. It took Elizabeth Eckford and the others to walk into that school. So, it was a happy day, right? Integration took place. We have the Little Rock Nine in the school. It's going ahead. Happy day. Yeah, that would be true if I could end the story here, but I can't.

It took a president. It took public opinion. It took troops. What happens if a president doesn't agree with the court decision?

Three presidents have defied the court. Andrew Jackson and the case of the Cherokee Indians in Georgia is one example ... But do you think George Bush liked the decision of the Supreme Court, deciding in favor of people in Guantanamo and against him, the president, and the secretary of the defense and so forth? No, he didn't like it, but he said, I don't like it but I'll follow it.

You've also made the case that rule of law only survives with public confidence in the institution. Why should the public trust that members of the court are abiding by its ethics code when there's no enforcement mechanism and no independent oversight?

Because the only way you can really punish a federal judge is by impeachment. They wrote that in the Constitution.

A lot of people say the court is self-policing. How can that be?

Well, let's change the Constitution. Do you want the judges to be deciding on the basis of public opinion? Well, do you? No! Of course not. Of course not.

The headlines about some of your former colleagues have been very concerning to people. The alleged trips, book deals, things like that -- accusations of misbehavior. You don't think there needs to be any independent review of that?

I didn't say that. What I said was there was only one real way of punishing the judge, and that's to impeach.

There's been a lot of talk in the past year about the political activities of justices' spouses. Does that ever become problematic, in your view?

Suppose that your wife wants to give $100 to candidate X, and you're a member of the court. Can she do it?

Can she? What does the ethics code say?

It doesn't say she can't. But it's not just what the ethics code says. I thought this was a period when women made their own decisions. I thought this was a period when they were not just doing whatever there was best for their husband.

They are independent people.

I thought so. I thought so.

Do you worry about political reaction to the court's decisions? And do you worry about violence?

There were instances of someone who was caught who had flown from the West Coast with weapons with the intent of attacking one of the justices.

Justice Kavanaugh.

Yes. So, of course, it's a concern, and it's a serious, serious problem. You don't want any of the disagreements among people, which are many and can be healthy, to turn into violence. Totally wrong, totally wrong, totally wrong.

Have you ever been threatened as a judge?

I don't know, because they [Supreme Court Police] take the letters.

So, you haven't ever felt in danger?

No.

Two years ago you faced a lot of pressure from liberals and Democrats to retire. There was even a van driving around the Supreme Court with a billboard saying, 'Breyer retire now.' Did you hear any of the calls to retire? And, were you concerned that if you had left in the midst of that, that it might appear that you were bowing to political pressure?

Both of those things somewhat. So, yeah.

Any advice for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who seems to be facing the same thing right now?

People can say what they want. They can say what they want. That's their decision to say whatever they want. I don't have to agree with it.

Finally, when you retired from the court, you said the country is an experiment in democracy that is still in progress -- that it's the "next generation, the one after that, my grandchildren and their children, they'll determine whether the experiment still works" -- and that you are optimistic. Why are you so optimistic when every day we're bombarded with reasons why this democratic experiment is on the brink?

It's not the first time. And Senator Kennedy used to say -- as the country goes like this, you know, it's wavering but survives. And Churchill said the United States always does the right thing -- after trying everything else. There is a lot to learn before you become too depressed.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- In a historic shift, the Drug Enforcement Administration supports recommending the reclassification of marijuana as a less dangerous drug, moving it from a Schedule 1 classification, alongside drugs like heroin and ecstasy, to a Schedule 3 drug, like ketamine, steroids and testosterone, sources told ABC News.

A source confirmed that the Department of Justice on Tuesday will send its recommendation to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, which will review it, further solidifying a process that will then take several more months.

The White House declined to comment, referring all questions to the DOJ, which then announced its decision later on Tuesday.

In a statement, department spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa said: "Today, the attorney general circulated a proposal to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Once published by the Federal Register, it will initiate a formal rulemaking process as prescribed by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act."

As Hinojosa indicated, the Office of Management and Budget will soon initiate a public comment period before the issue gets sent back to DOJ to run their own process, which will include hearings and a review by an administrative judge.

The change is far from finalized and, even if approved, the move would not legalize marijuana outright.

However, rescheduling marijuana would have sweeping ramifications for how the federal government treats the drug -- in terms of medical research, taxation and more -- as marijuana has become more widely used across American society.

A majority of states have legalized marijuana use to varying degrees, including for medicinal purposes, according to the Pew Research Center.

“We classify marijuana at the same level as heroin – and more serious than fentanyl. It makes no sense," President Joe Biden tweeted in October 2022, when he asked the Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. attorney general to begin this review process.

Since then, Biden has also pardoned thousands of people convicted for federal offenses of simple marijuana possession. If the drug is reclassified to Schedule 3, it could impact those charges at the state level.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Former President Donald Trump is playing down but not ruling out the possibility of political violence if he loses the November election.

"I don't think we're going to have that. I think we're going to win," Trump told Time magazine in a cover story published on Tuesday.

He had been asked about an earlier comment to Time that "I think we're gonna have a big victory and I think there will be no violence" -- but "what if you don't win, sir?" the Time reporter said.

"If we don't win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election," Trump went on to say.

He has previously warned of problems if things go wrong for him, writing on social media last year, before he faced any of his four criminal indictments, that "false" charges against him would bring "potential death & destruction." (He denies all wrongdoing.)

And in March, during a campaign rally, as he talked about the auto industry, Trump said that the country would face a broader "bloodbath" if he's not elected in November.

Speaking with Time for the new cover story, he alluded to his frequent, evidence-free claims of widespread election fraud and said, "I don't believe they'll be able to do the things that they did the last time. I don't think they'll be able to get away with it. And if that's the case, we're gonna win in record-setting fashion."

The former president himself faces federal charges for his actions related to attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the lead-up to a violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress gathered to certify his defeat.

Trump has since embraced and defended the people prosecuted for their alleged actions during Jan. 6. The Department of Justice said this month that nearly 1,400 people have been charged in connection with the attack, including 129 people accused of "using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer."

Approximately 800 people have pleaded guilty to their charges and another 156 people have been convicted at trial, according to the DOJ.

Trump told Time that he would "absolutely" consider pardoning every one of the people prosecuted.

"I think it's a two-tier system of justice. I think it's a very, very sad thing," he said of the rioters whom he has called "hostages." In his Time interviews, he called them "patriots."

"If somebody was evil and bad, I would look at that differently," he noted.

Elsewhere in his interviews, Trump claimed that should he win a second term, he would not attempt to defy the Constitution and try to stay in power for longer -- with a third term -- as some have warned.

"I don't really have a choice, but I would," Trump said about retiring after a second term.

He "wouldn't be in favor of a challenge" to the 22nd Amendment, which imposes term limits, he said. "I intend to serve four years and do a great job."

And as he continues to focus on a theme of retribution for his supporters and claims of persecution regarding his various legal troubles during his campaign, Trump told Time that as president he might fire U.S. attorneys who refuse his orders to prosecute someone, saying, "It would depend on the situation."

Trump suggested that as president he wouldn't "want" to prosecute the district attorneys who have brought cases against him, like Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis, but he did not give a direct answer when asked by Time if he would still order his DOJ to do so.

He previously said on the campaign trail that Bragg should be prosecuted, but he denied making that comment to Time.

"We're gonna look at a lot of things like they're looking. What they've done is a terrible thing. No, I don't want to do [prosecute them]," he told Time, later saying, "Our retribution is going to be through success of our country."

Though Trump has said he would appoint a special prosecutor to "go after" the Bidens, he told Time that "it depends what happens with the Supreme Court," as the justices consider whether to grant Trump some immunity from prosecution for conduct while in the White House.

"A president should have immunity. That includes [Joe] Biden. If they've ruled that they don't have immunity, Biden, probably nothing to do with me, he would be prosecuted," Trump told Time, claiming without evidence that Biden has broken the law.

The Biden campaign attacked Trump's latest comments.

"Not since the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault at home as they are today – because of Donald Trump," Biden campaign spokesperson James Singer said in a statement on Tuesday.

"Joe Biden believes democracy is still a sacred cause and his campaign is about the future America is going to build together," Singer said, "not one small, weak man's delusion of a dictatorship."

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(JERUSALEM) -- As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated Tuesday that Israel would proceed with a military operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah "with or without a deal," the Biden administration -- which has repeatedly warned against a Rafah offensive -- appears to be holding out hope for a cease-fire agreement.

"We will enter Rafah because we have no other choice," Netanyahu said Tuesday in comments translated from Hebrew. "We will destroy the Hamas battalions there, we will complete all the objectives of the war, including the repatriation of all our hostages."

Netanyahu said there would be an evacuation of the civilian population. No timeline has been given for an operation in Rafah, where it's believed more than 1.4 million Palestinians have gathered in the wake of Israel's bombardment of the Gaza Strip.

Since the Hamas terrorist group's unprecedented attack on Israel on Oct. 7, more than 34,000 people have been killed in Gaza and at least 77,000 others injured, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health. In Israel, at least 1,700 people have been killed and 8,700 others injured by Hamas and other Palestinian militants since Oct. 7, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

"The idea that we will stop the war before achieving all of its goals is out of the question," Netanyahu said in a statement from his office Tuesday, The Associated Press reported. "We will enter Rafah and we will eliminate Hamas’ battalions there -- with or without a deal, to achieve the total victory."

President Joe Biden has previously called invading Rafah a "red line." Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in a trip to the Middle East in March, said a major military operation there would be a "mistake" that would result in more civilian deaths and worsen an already dire humanitarian crisis.

And Vice President Kamala Harris previously told ABC News in an interview that the administration was not ruling out consequences if Netanyahu went ahead with an offensive despite U.S. concerns.

National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby tried to steer clear of Netanyahu's comments Tuesday.

"I'll let the prime minister speak for himself," Kirby told reporters. "Our position on Rafah is absolutely the same. We don't want to see a major ground operation in Rafah. Certainly, we don't want to see operations that haven't factored in the safety and security of those 1.5 million folks trying to seek refuge down there. And we conveyed that to our Israeli counterparts certainly privately, absolutely publicly, and nothing's changed about that."

Meanwhile, speaking with reporters Tuesday in Jordan amid another trip to the Middle East, Blinken said he'd want to see a hostage deal come together in the "coming days."

Blinken, who will head to Israel next, seemed to echo Kirby's earlier comments Tuesday morning that the hostage deal has to become a reality because there’s simply no good alternative.

"Our focus right now is on getting a cease-fire and hostages home. That is the most urgent thing," Blinken said. "It's also, I think, what is achievable because the Israelis have put a strong proposal on the table. They've demonstrated that they're willing to compromise, and now it's on Hamas. No more delays. No more excuses. The time to act is now. So our focus is on this and we want to see in the coming days, this agreement coming together."

The United States has repeatedly called for Israel to present a plan regarding Rafah. Vedant Patel, the State Department's principal deputy spokesperson, said Tuesday the U.S. still has not seen a humanitarian plan presented by Israel and that it continues to oppose large-scale offensive operations in the Rafah region.

"We have been unambiguous about the concerns that we have when it comes to the more than a million people seeking refuge in that region," Patel said. "So any kind of operation that does not address these concerns would be a nonstarter for us."

Israel will not send a delegation to Cairo until Hamas provides an answer on the proposal Israel has offered them, an Israeli source told ABC News on Tuesday.

During a weeklong cease-fire between Hamas and Israel in late November, Hamas freed more than 100 people. In exchange, Israel released more than 200 Palestinians from Israeli prisons.

There are 129 hostages still believed to be held in Gaza, according to the Israeli Prime Minister's Office, the Israel Defense Forces and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Of the 129, at least 34 are believed to be dead, with their bodies still held by Hamas in Gaza, Israeli officials say.

ABC News' Anne Flaherty, Molly Nagle and Jordana Miller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Speaker Mike Johnson and other House Republicans are stepping up their criticism of the college protests happening nationwide in connection to the Israel-Hamas war.

Johnson, speaking on Tuesday alongside other GOP leaders at their weekly press conference, denounced the latest developments at Columbia University and called on President Joe Biden to speak more forcefully on the issue.

"Columbia is out of control," he claimed, citing overnight developments of students occupying a campus building and defying the university's order to disperse.

"They're unable to operate the university at a time when the students are prepared for their final exams," Johnson said. "It's unfair, it's unright, it's unsafe and it must stop."

Biden has tried to balance support for Israel with sympathy for Palestinians killed and suffering in Gaza, but has faced criticism from some in his own party and many Republicans on his approach to the fraught Israel-Hamas war. Last week, Biden said he condemned "antisemitic protests" but also condemned "those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians."

The speaker and some of his New York Republican colleagues visited the New York City campus last week and met with Jewish students. Johnson was heckled and booed when he delivered remarks in front of protesters calling on Columbia University President Minouche Shafik to resign and suggested the National Guard be called to tamp down the demonstrations.

The college protests have been largely peaceful, officials say, but escalated in recent days following arrests and suspensions at some schools. Pro-Palestinian students and protesters have called for their colleges to divest from funding Israeli military operations as the humanitarian crisis worsens in Gaza. Some Jewish students have called the demonstrations antisemitic and said they fear for their safety.

Congressional Republicans have seized on the protests to politically hit Democrats on the issue and show strong support for Israel. Many have called for colleges with these protests to lose federal funding.

House Republicans on Tuesday also unveiled the framework of a new congressional investigation examining how university leadership has dealt with the protests. House Committee on Education and Workforce Chair Virginia Foxx, joined by GOP leadership and committee chairs at a press conference Tuesday, said she's notified the presidents of Yale, UCLA and the University of Michigan to appear before the Education Committee on May 23.

“American universities are officially put on notice that we have come to take our universities back,” Foxx said.

Johnson said Congress has "a role" to play in this issue, but also called on Biden to do more.

"We need the president of the United States to speak to the issue and say this is wrong. What's happening on college campuses right now is wrong," Johnson said. "It is un-American. It is not who we are. The president seems unable or unwilling to do this."

The White House said on Tuesday that it believed that protesters "forcibly taking over a building on campus is absolutely the wrong approach."

"That is not an example of peaceful protest. And of course, as we've rightly noted, hate speech and hate symbols also have no place in this country," said National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, who told ABC News the administration was "watching this carefully."

Kirby previously said Biden respected the rights of demonstrators to peacefully protest, but made clear they "don't want to see anybody hurt in the process."

"The president knows that there are very strong feelings about the war in Gaza. He understands that, he respects that, and as he has said many times, we certainly respect the right of peaceful protest," Kirby said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday.

Kirby added that the administration also condemned "the antisemitism language that we've heard of late and certainly condemn all the hate speech and the threats of violence out there."

This week, the House is expected to vote on legislation titled the "Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023." The bill, backed by Republicans and some Democrats, would require the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism when applying anti-discrimination laws.

But several Democrats have taken issue with the alliance's definition of antisemitism and some of the contemporary examples on antisemitism listed by the group. Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler, who is Jewish, said he took issue with the bill because it would put the "thumb on the scale" in favor of one definition of antisemitism and could "chill" constitutionally-protected free speech.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries urged Johnson to consider a different bipartisan bill targeting antisemitism introduced by North Carolina Democrat Kathy Manning and New Jersey Republican Chris Smith titled the "Countering Antisemitism Act." The legislation would establish within the White House a national coordinator to counter antisemitism; require the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and National Counterterrorism Center to jointly produce an annual threat assessment of antisemitic violent extremism; and require the Department of Education to designate a senior official to advise on countering antisemitic discrimination in higher education.

"There is nothing scheduled on the floor this week that would accomplish the concrete, thoughtful strategies outlined by the Biden administration, set forth in the legislation and echoed by leading Jewish organizations across the country," Jeffries said in a letter to Johnson on Monday.

"The effort to crush antisemitism and hatred in any form is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It's an American issue that must be addressed in a bipartisan manner with the fierce urgency of now. In this spirit," Jeffries added.

ABC News' Arthur Jones and Molly Nagle contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- House Democratic leadership announced on Tuesday that if a motion to vacate Speaker Mike Johnson is brought to the House floor for a vote, they would vote to table the effort -- effectively saving the speaker from ouster. Less than an hour later, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated that she will trigger a move to oust Johnson to put members on the record.

Greene introduced a motion to vacate the speaker's chair last month. Her push to remove Johnson came after a vote to fund the government to prevent a shutdown -- which Johnson needed Democratic votes to pass.

"We will vote to table Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's Motion to Vacate the Chair. If she invokes the motion, it will not succeed," the leaders wrote in a statement.

This means Democrats have now put it on the record that they would save Johnson if a motion to vacate is brought to the floor for a vote.

Greene -- who had not provided a timeline or any insight into if she will make the motion to vacate resolution privileged, meaning it would force the House to take it up at some point -- signaled in a post on X shortly after the Democrats' announcement that she will force a floor vote to remove Johnson from the speakership.

"Mike Johnson is officially the Democrat Speaker of the House. Here is their official endorsement of his Speakership," Rep. Greene said in a statement on X, citing the statement from House Democratic leadership.

Greene said he should "resign" or "switch parties."

"If the Democrats want to elect him Speaker (and some Republicans want to support the Democrats' chosen Speaker), I'll give them the chance to do it. I'm a big believer in recorded votes because putting Congress on record allows every American to see the truth and provides transparency to our votes. Americans deserve to see the Uniparty on full display. I'm about to give them their coming out party!" Greene wrote on X.

Greene ignored reporters' questions regarding her motion to vacate effort. Greene did say that "plans are still developing" when asked about her timeline with the motion to vacate.

Johnson reacted to the Democrats' statement Tuesday morning, denying that he cut a deal with the Democrats to save his job.

"The first I have heard of it," Johnson said when asked about the statement. "Look, I have to do my job."

Johnson said "no" when asked if he spoke to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries about receiving Democratic support if a motion to vacate is brought to the floor for a vote -- and if that conversation happened before allowing votes on a $95 billion foreign aid package, a move that earned him bipartisan praise.

"I've not requested assistance from anyone ... I'm not focused on that at all. I focused on getting the job done and getting the legislation passed," Johnson said.

"No, there's no deals at all," he added.

Pressed on if he would be comfortable leading Congress by having support of Democrats -- a tactic that landed his predecessor Kevin McCarthy in hot water and eventually contributed to his ouster -- Johnson said he aims to work with all in the House while maintaining his conservative values.

"Listen, I am the Speaker of the House -- serves the whole body. I'm a conservative Republican, a lifelong conservative Republican. That's what my philosophy is. That's what my record is and will continue to govern on those principles. I mean, you know, you hope you have the support of everyone the entire country," he said.

While Greene pushes to oust Johnson, many Republicans tell ABC News that they are not on board with her effort. Greene's effort comes in an election year, when many Republicans do not seem interested in engaging in another speakership battle that could project uncertainty in their conference.

Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina said he has not heard of any movement on her motion vacate effort.

"I am not going to support it. She can pull it -- it's her right -- but I am not going to support it," Rep. Norman said.

Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee said, "I don't think it will happen" and "I don't think it's a good idea to move it forward" when pressed on a motion to vacate.

Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida said the motion to vacate effort is "dead."

"There is no will to do the motion to vacate," Cammack said. "People recognize that it is not what we need at this time. So yeah, we are focused on winning."

Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said he would oppose the ouster of Johnson from the House's top job.

"I am going to oppose it," Bacon said. "I think Speaker Johnson is doing a great job."

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Former President Donald Trump maintained in a new interview that he'd leave it up to individual states whether or not they want to monitor women's pregnancies to determine if someone gets an abortion after their state's legal ban and then prosecute them.

Asked whether he's comfortable with states prosecuting women who have abortions after the legal limit, which now varies widely by state, Trump told Time magazine: "It's irrelevant whether I'm comfortable or not. It's totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions."

Time also asked, "Do you think states should monitor women's pregnancies so they can know if they've gotten an abortion after the ban?"

"I think they might do that. ... You'll have to speak to the individual states," Trump responded.

When previously asked if doctors should be punished for performing abortions, Trump had said it was a "state's rights issue."

Trump also repeatedly dodged a question from Time about whether he'd vote for an abortion referendum in Florida in November that would overturn the state's six-week abortion ban -- even as he doubled down on his previous comment that he believes that time frame is "too severe."

"I don't tell you what I'm gonna vote for," he said. "I only tell you the state's gonna make a determination."

As his general election fight against President Joe Biden heats up, Trump is now seeking to stake out a seemingly more cautious stance on abortion.

He said in early April that, with the reversal of Roe v. Wade's nationwide abortion access protections, the issue should be left to individual states as long as they include exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the pregnant woman.

However, he has repeatedly touted his role in ending Roe by naming three of the U.S. Supreme Court justices who overruled it in 2022.

He has also called out some abortion policies he disagrees with, including saying a Civil War-era ban in Arizona, which was recently ruled to be enforceable, goes too far.

The rival Biden campaign, and the president himself, have seized on Trump's role in overruling Roe and in abortion bans across the country. Trump's shift in rhetoric has also drawn some criticism from abortion opponents who contend he's being "inconsistent."

"It shouldn't matter where in America you live," Biden said in a speech last week. "This isn't about states' rights, this is about women's rights."

Biden's campaign manager slammed Trump's comments to Time on Tuesday, saying in a statement, "Simply put: November’s election will determine whether women in the United States have reproductive freedom, or whether Trump’s new government will continue its assault to control women’s health care decisions."

Throughout his new interview with Time, Trump also laid out his agenda for a potential second term, including on immigration, tariffs and more.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- When Donald Trump began to claim presidential immunity from criminal prosecution related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, many legal analysts ABC News spoke with considered it a weak argument.

But last week, in nearly three hours of oral arguments, several Supreme Court justices seemed open to some limited protection for former presidents from criminal liability for official acts they undertook while in the White House.

It was a shocking turn of events, according to some veteran court observers.

"It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court," Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News. "I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable."

"That's exactly the part that I think most of the American public is going to find fairly incredulous," said David Schultz, a professor at the University of Minnesota and national expert in constitutional law. "The idea of saying that the president of the United States is above the law compared to the rest of us."

While the justices seemed poised to reject Trump's more sweeping claim of "absolute" immunity, how they attempt to devise what official acts are and are not exempt from criminal prosecution will set a new standard for presidential power.

"That is a whole new territory for the court that we've never seen before," Schultz said, "and will make major new law in the United States."

The justices grappled with the unprecedented nature of the case during Thursday's hearing. Justice Neil Gorsuch said what they decide will be a "rule for the ages."

While Trump is the first ever president to be criminally charged, the arguments were largely devoid of references to the former president and the specific allegations against him.

The immunity question came before the Supreme Court in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, alleging election interference; Trump is facing four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. He pleaded not guilty and denies all wrongdoing.

Puzzlingly, "in some sense, Trump did not seem to be important in this case," Schultz said.

Instead, the debate largely focused on hypothetical scenarios as justices expressed concern about the consequences of too much or too little protection for future presidents.

"The question quickly became, 'What's the scope of official conduct?' And that's where, I think, the disagreements among the justices were revealing," said Gerhardt.

At one point, Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.

"The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I've ever heard at the Supreme Court," said Gerhardt.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor also asked Sauer if a president could order the military or someone else to kill a political rival, which Sauer also said could be considered an official act depending on the circumstances.

"If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office?" Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked.

On the other side, several conservative justices appeared primarily concerned about future bad faith prosecutions against former presidents and whether that would hamper their ability to make the "tough decisions" entailed by their job.

Trump's attorney also made that case in his opening statement, stating the looming threat of prosecution would "distort the president's decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed."

Justice Samuel Alito even posited if, without immunity, presidents would be incentivized to commit crimes in order to stay in power rather than peacefully retire because of concern they will be prosecuted by a "bitter political opponent" after leaving office.

"Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?" Alito asked.

One expert described Alito's line of questioning as stepping through the looking glass into an alternate reality.

"The fact that we haven't had something like this happen before is consistent with the government's position that there are institutional norms that have largely held," said Ray Brescia, a professor at Albany Law School. "So, to upset that delicate balance because, in the words of Justice Alito, we can't hold the president accountable for trying to subvert democracy in the fear that a future president might try to subvert democracy is just totally Alice in Wonderland."

Though Stanley Brand, a former House general counsel and now an attorney for several former Trump aides, said he considered Alito's question "timely."

"What about Joe Biden when he leaves office? Is a Republican Department of Justice going to allege that some of the things he did were illegal? So I don't think that was a hyperbolic or imaginary concern," Brand said.

The conservative justices also highlighted controversial conduct by previous presidents, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision to inter Japanese Americans during World War II and John F. Kennedy's scheme to undermine Fidel Castro's rule in Cuba, and whether they could have been subject to prosecution.

"Presidents have to do a lot of things that in retrospect or under the microscope of a lawsuit might not look very good," said Brand. "You have to look carefully at those, and I think that's certainly what at least five of the justices expressed concern over."

The back-and-forth reflected the difficult road ahead for the court in crafting an opinion.

"The path that they went down the other day is a very messy one and I don't know how they're going to come up with a clean answer on it," said Schultz.

A trial for Trump's election subversion case was originally set for March 4 but is delayed as the immunity question works its way through the courts. The Supreme Court agreeing to hear Trump's immunity claim and its approach in crafting an opinion, which is not expected until well into June, is largely seen as a win for the former president as it makes it less likely than ever that the trial will proceed before the November election.

In some previous high-profile opinions involving presidential authority, including U.S. v. Nixon (in which the court said a president does not have executive privilege in immunity from subpoenas or other civil court actions) and Clinton v. Jones (which said a president has no immunity from civil damages for acts done before taking office or unrelated to the office) the Supreme Court ruled in unanimous fashion.

But experts said in this case, whatever the court decides, it is likely to be divided.

"It's clear to me that this will likely be a split decision," said Schultz. "I saw clear divisions and that's just not good for the court and it's not good for America in such an important case like this."

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Emerging technologies in artificial intelligence will make it easier for bad actors to "conceptualize and conduct" chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks, according to a report released by the Department of Homeland Security on Monday.

Selected excerpts of the report to President Joe Biden were made public after he signed an executive order three months ago on artificial intelligence.

The lack of regulations in existing U.S. biological and chemical security, combined with the increase in using AI, when combined with the increased use of AI tools "could increase the likelihood of both intentional and unintentional dangerous research outcomes that pose a risk to public health, economic security, or national security," according to the DHS report.

"The responsible use of AI holds great promise for advancing science, solving urgent and future challenges and improving our national security, but AI also requires that we be prepared to rapidly mitigate the misuse of AI in the development of chemical and biological threats," said Assistant Secretary for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Mary Ellen Callahan.

"This report highlights the emerging nature of AI technologies, their interplay with chemical and biological research and the associated risks, and provides longer-term objectives around how to ensure safe, secure and trustworthy development and use of AI," she said.

DHS also said that the diverse approaches of AI developers make it crucial that the U.S. and international partners communicate and harness "AI's potential for good."

"The degree to which nation states or groups interested in pursuing these unconventional weapons capabilities will harness such AI tools remains unclear, however, since there are various technical and logistical hurdles that have to be met to develop fully functioning weapons systems that can be used," Javed Ali, the former senior counterterrorism coordinator on the National Security Council, told ABC News. "That said, it is more likely that AI tools will be more helpful on the research and theoretical design end of the spectrum than the actual manufacture and deployment of such weapons, especially with respect to nuclear weapons."

A separate DHS report produced by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) last week highlighted that some attacks could be carried out of helped by using AI -- including those targeting critical infrastructure.

"It is clear that foreign intelligence services, terrorist groups and criminal organizations have embraced the power of technology and incorporated the use of advanced computing capability into the tactics they use to achieve their illegal objectives," John Cohen, the former Acting Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis at DHS, said. "Terrorists, criminals and other threat actors can use AI to acquire the instructions on how to develop explosives and other weapons of mass destruction. They can also glean greater insights on potential targets, and on delivery methods to use to achieve the greatest possible disruptive result."

Last year, the European Parliament approved landmark legislation that aimed to regulate the use of AI and promote "trustworthy" uses.

Last week, the DHS announced the creation of a new AI board that includes 22 representatives from a range of sectors, including software and hardware companies, critical infrastructure operators, public officials, the civil rights community and academia.

Some notable members of the board include: Sam Altman, the founder of OpenAI; Ed Bastian, the CEO of Delta Airlines; Satya Nadella, the chairman and CEO of Microsoft; Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Alphabet; and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore.

The board, according to the agency, will help DHS stay ahead of evolving threats posed by hostile nation-state actors and reinforce national security by helping to deter and prevent those threats.

Cohen, now an ABC News contributor, said the board is a good step, but there is more to be done.

"In many respects, we are using investigative and threat mitigation strategies that were intended to address the threats of yesterday, while those engaged in illegal and threat related activity are using the technologies of today and tomorrow to achieve their objectives," he said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis met privately with former President Donald Trump in Miami on Sunday morning, multiple sources tell ABC News, marking the latest development in the pair's rocky relationship following a contentious GOP primary in which Trump won out over DeSantis.

DeSantis requested the meeting with Trump through a mutual contact hoping to "bury the hatchet," according to one source familiar with the interaction.

Real estate investor Steve Witkoff arranged the meeting, a second source said. DeSantis had breakfast with Trump while he was playing golf.

DeSantis' office declined to comment; Trump's campaign did not respond to a request from ABC News.

The Washington Post was first to report the news of the meeting.

The 2024 Republican nominating contest saw Trump, the GOP's standard-bearer, and DeSantis, a rising conservative star, go after one another directly.

But DeSantis quickly endorsed Trump once he left the race after a distant second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses in January.

"While I've had disagreements with Donald Trump, such as on the coronavirus pandemic and his elevation of [COVID-19 adviser] Anthony Fauci, Trump is superior to the current incumbent, Joe Biden. That is clear," DeSantis said then, to which Trump later responded, "I appreciate that, and I also look forward to working with Ron."

Earlier this month, DeSantis privately signaled that he planned to fundraise for the former president's 2024 effort at a donor retreat, a source confirmed to ABC News.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem is defending a controversial account she shares in a new book about killing her 14-month-old dog, Cricket, in an incident she said was decades ago.

"I can understand why some people are upset about a 20 year old story of Cricket, one of the working dogs at our ranch, in my upcoming book -- No Going Back," Noem, who is speculated to be among the leading contenders to be Donald Trump's choice of a running mate, wrote on X on Sunday.

"The book is filled with many honest stories of my life, good and bad days, challenges, painful decisions, and lessons learned," Noem wrote.

Touting her "years of public service," including leading her state during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Noem went on to write, "My hope is anyone reading this book will have an understanding that I always work to make the best decisions I can for the people in my life."

In her new book, "No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward," set to be released next week and obtained by ABC News, Noem writes about what led up to her decision to kill Cricket, a wirehair pointer -- a choice that has been widely criticized by animal advocates and others as inhumane and excessive. Democrats have also joined the outcry.

In the book, Noem describes the dog as having an "aggressive personality" and being "out of her mind with excitement."

According to the book, as first reported in The Guardian, things apparently came to a head for Noem, when, on the way home from a pheasant hunt one day, Cricket attacked a family's group of chickens, acting, she says, like a "trained assassin."

When Noem eventually got control of the dog, by grabbing her collar, she writes, "She whipped around to bite me."

"I hated that dog," Noem writes, claiming Cricket was "untrainable."

"This was my dog and my responsibility, and I would not ask someone else to clean up my mess," Noem writes. "I stopped the truck in the middle of the yard, got my gun, grabbed Cricket's leash and led her out into the pasture and down into the gravel pit."

"It was not a pleasant job," she writes, "but it had to be done."

Noem's stories of putting animals down don't end there.

After shooting her dog, Noem writes that she also killed a goat her family owned that she calls "nasty and mean." She describes the goat as being a "problem for years," writing that male goats "urinate on their own heads and beards while in rut" and that the specific goat loved to chase her kids, scaring them.

In her book, Noem compares both decisions to put down the animals to a leader needing to make difficult decisions.

"It's often messy, ugly, and matter-of-fact, dealing with a problem that no one wants to deal with," she writes, adding, "I guess if I were a better politician I wouldn't tell the story here."

On Friday, Noem doubled down on X amid backlash over killing her dog.

"We love animals, but tough decisions like this happen all the time on a farm," Noem wrote. "Sadly, we just had to put down 3 horses a few weeks ago that had been in our family for 25 years."

She expanded on her experiences in her statement on Sunday.

"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.

"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," Noem wrote. "I followed the law and was being a responsible parent, dog owner, and neighbor."

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.