(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.

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor 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. Greene is now signaling that she will force a floor vote to oust Johnson.

"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.

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.

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 that she will force a floor vote to remove Johnson from the speakership.

"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," she posted to X on Tuesday.

"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!"

On Monday, Greene posted to X that Johnson "has completely sold out the Republican voters."

"His days as Speaker are numbered," Greene wrote.

ABC News' Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.

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.

As protests over Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza and the treatment of civilians continue at dozens of colleges and universities across the country, the White House says that President Joe Biden respects the right of demonstrators to make their voices heard -- peacefully -- but "we don't want to see anybody hurt in the process" as some protests are met with police crackdowns.

"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. People should have the ability to air their views and to share their perspectives publicly, but it has to be peaceful," White House national security communications adviser John Kirby told ABC News "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.

Kirby did sound a warning, though, that some language heard in the mushrooming demonstrations crossed a line with the administration.

"We absolutely condemn the antisemitism language that we've heard of late, and we certainly condemn all the hate speech and the threats of violence out there. These protests, we understand they're important, but they do need to be peaceful," he said.

Many of the groups behind the pro-Palestinian demonstrations, some of which have turned into ongoing encampments, have denounced 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.

The protests have largely been peaceful, according to officials.

There have also been mass arrests, drawing its own criticism, with police accusing some demonstrators of trespassing, resisting arrest and other crimes.

After more than 80 people were detained this weekend at Washington University in St. Louis, the school said in a statement, in part, "We are firmly committed to free expression and allow ample opportunity for voices to be heard on our campus. However, we expect everyone to respect our policies and we will take swift action to enforce them to their fullest extent."

Pressed about the police response on "This Week," Kirby told Stephanopoulos: "We'll leave it to local authorities to determine how these protests are managed, but we want them to be peaceful protests and obviously we don't want to see anybody hurt in the process of peacefully protesting."

The demonstrations and the ensuing responses have set off a debate over free speech on college campuses and again elevated domestic tensions around the war in Gaza, which was set off by Hamas' Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel. More than 34,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s military response, according to Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry.

Kirby said Secretary of State Antony Blinken will be pushing hard for a six-week cease-fire in a trip to the region this week, and the administration hopes that could turn into a more lasting halt to the fighting.

"We want it to last for about six weeks. It will allow for all those hostages [held by Hamas] to get out and, of course, to allow for easier aid access to places in Gaza, particularly up in the north. So, he's going to be working on that very, very hard," Kirby said of Blinken.

The White House has been pushing for such a deal for months. An earlier cease-fire agreement, in which Hamas also freed some of the hostages it took on Oct. 7, was briefly in effect late last year.

"What we're hoping is that after six weeks of a temporary cease-fire, we can maybe get something more enduring in place. We want to see an end to the conflict as soon as possible," Kirby said on "This Week."

He also said Blinken intends to learn more about what the Israelis plan to do regarding the southern Gaza city of Rafah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that the country's forces must go into Rafah as part of the fight against Hamas, though hundreds of thousands of civilians are also thought to be sheltering there.

Kirby conceded on Sunday that while the U.S. will be able to have its say before Israel begins its operations in Rafah, the administration does not have a firm grasp of what the Israeli military's goals and intentions are.

Stephanopoulos noted that in the event of an invasion of the city, "any prospect of any short-term -- of a short ending to the war is completely over."

"We have to have a better understanding from the Israelis about what they want to do," Kirby said, adding, "They've assured us they won't go into Rafah until we've had a chance to really share our perspectives and concerns with them. So we'll see where that goes."

A large-scale incursion of Rafah risks exacerbating a dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with international observers warning of disease and potential famine.

Kirby praised the U.S. military's building of a pier off the Gaza shore -- "probably to two to three weeks" away from operation -- to help deliver aid but said nothing would replace increases in distribution of assistance over land routes.

"And I will say that they have been increasing the amount of trucks that have been getting into Gaza," Kirby said of the Israelis. "Now, there are still challenges on the ground in getting it up into the north, but that's starting to happen."

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

President Joe Biden tweaked the concerns over his fitness for office and dug at his 2024 rival, former President Donald Trump, at the annual White House correspondents' dinner on Saturday night.

Speaking at a ritzy Washington hotel to politicos and journalists alike, the 81-year-old commander in chief alluded to his past physical stumbles.

"I told her, 'Don't worry, it's just like riding a bike,'" he said at one point, recounting a conversation with first lady Jill Biden about his Saturday speech. "She said, 'That's what I'm worried about.'"

Joe Biden also touched on age, set to be a defining issue of this year's presidential race -- but to knock the 77-year-old Trump rather than himself.

"Of course, the 2024 election is in full swing and, yes, age is an issue. I'm a grown man running against a 6-year-old," Biden quipped. "Well, I feel great. I really feel great."

"Age is the only thing we have in common. My vice president actually endorses me," the president added, referencing former Vice President Mike Pence's refusal to endorse his former boss in the wake of Jan. 6.

Biden also touched on Trump's legal troubles, including his recent appearances in court in New York City over hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged affair -- and, prosecutors claim, to hide the scandal from voters before the 2016 election. Trump denies all wrongdoing.

"I had a great stretch since the State of the Union. But Donald has had a few tough days lately. You might call it 'stormy weather,'" Biden said.

He used his speech, at times, to also sound a serious note, knocking Trump's criticism of the press as the "enemy of the people" and vowing to bring home Americans imprisoned abroad, calling out Paul Whelan and Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, both of whom are held in Russia on charges they and the U.S. deny.

The president concluded by issuing a call to the news media to focus on the "stakes" of the 2024 election, casting Trump as a threat to democracy -- a frequent attack that Trump has sought to reverse.

"Move past the horse race numbers and the gotcha moments and the distractions, the side shows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics and focus on what's actually at stake. …The stakes couldn't be higher," Biden said. "I have my role, but with all due respect, so do you."

Trump, for his part, hit back on social media, lambasting the dinner -- which he skipped during his time in office, foregoing the customary speech the president also gives -- as "really bad" and Biden as an "absolute disaster."

"Doesn’t get much worse than this!" he wrote.

ABC News' Lalee Ibssa, Soo Rin Kim and Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) -- Kristi Noem is speculated to be among the leading contenders to be Donald Trump's choice of a running mate.

In her new book, "No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward," obtained by ABC News, South Dakota's Republican governor writes about killing her 14-month-old dog, Cricket, a wirehaired pointer.

Noem describes the dog as having an "aggressive personality" and "was out of her mind with excitement."

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

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

"I hated that dog," Noem reveals, 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 says she also killed a goat her family owned that she calls "nasty and mean." She described 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.

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."

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(AUGUSTA, Maine) -- Democratic leaders in Maine are threatening to eliminate the state's split-vote system for allocating Electoral College delegates if Nebraska Republicans move forward with their plan to do the same.

The two states are the only ones in the country to allocate some delegates proportionally by congressional district, which in 2020 allowed President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump to each secure one delegate in states that were otherwise won by the other – Biden in Nebraska and Trump in Maine.

But in early April, Trump, Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen and other prominent Republicans endorsed a legislative measure that would change Nebraska's allocation of Electoral College votes to a Trump-favorable, winner-take-all system. The state currently awards one vote for each of the state's three congressional districts and then two for the overall winner of the state.

Now, Democratic leaders in Maine, the only other state in the nation that awards electoral votes by congressional district, are indicating they'd make a similar change -- effectively negating any advantage Trump would gain under the proposed reform in Nebraska.

"If Nebraska's Republican Governor and Republican-controlled Legislature were to change their electoral system this late in the cycle in order to unfairly award Donald Trump an additional electoral vote, I think the Maine Legislature would be compelled to act in order to restore fairness to our country's electoral system," House Majority Leader Maureen Terry, a Democrat, said in a statement on Friday. "It is my hope and the hope of my colleagues in Maine that the Nebraska Republican Party decides not to make this desperate and ill-fated attempt to sway the 2024 election."

Earlier this month, Nebraska Republicans failed to whip the necessary 33 votes to break a filibuster in its unicameral Senate despite a nationwide pressure campaign from far-right conservative radio host and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. As a result, the proposal failed to advance before the end of the legislative session, effectively killing the bill.

But last week, Pillen -- who has already signaled he will call a special legislative session on property tax reform -- said in a speech that he would not hesitate to call a special session for "other unfinished business," which he said included reforming Nebraska to a winner-take-all system, with the key caveat that he would only do so if legislators had the votes.

So far, no special session has been officially called.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Joe Biden said Friday he is "happy" to debate former President Donald Trump, though did not specify as to when.

The comment was made during a one-on-one interview with radio host Howard Stern, who asked if the president had plans to debate his 2024 opponent.

"I am somewhere," Biden responded, the first time he's indicated he will debate Trump this election cycle. "I don't know when. I'm happy to debate him."

After Biden's remark on Stern's show on Sirius/XM, Trump's campaign manager Chris LaCivita responded on social media.

"Ok," he wrote on X, "let's set it up !"

Trump, who skipped all four Republican National Committee-sanctioned 2024 primary election debates and pulled out of one of his three debates with Biden in 2020, has urged Biden to participate in the three general debates scheduled for this fall.

However, the Biden campaign has expressed concern with the organization of these debates by the Commission on Presidential Debates, signaling that the nonpartisan group that has sponsored the events since the 1980s has been unclear about their ability to administer a "fair" debate with Trump.

In April 2022, the Republican National Committee also voted unanimously to withdraw from the Commission on Presidential Debates.

During the interview, Biden became very personal with the host. The president ran through his life story, touching on how his stuttering affected his life.

"You realize how humiliating it is. So ... it taught me to understand what other people are going through," Biden said when referencing how his stutter helped make him more compassionate.

Biden shared how after the passing of his first wife and 1-year-old daughter, he had a fleeting suicidal thought.

"You don't have to be crazy to commit suicide. If you've been at the top of a mountain, you think it's never gonna be there again. And just a brief moment, I thought, 'maybe I just go to the Delaware Memorial Bridge and jump.' But I had two kids," Biden said.

He became emotional when discussing the passing of his son Beau and his father.

On abortion, Biden assured Stern that if reelected, he would be able to get a majority in Congress to reinstate Roe v. Wade, the nationwide abortion guarantee that the Supreme Court overturned in 2022.

"I think there's going to be a real lesson learned on ... the MAGA Republican side of the aisle, because we're going to see a whole hell of a lot of state referenda and they're going to see they're gonna want to restore it. And that's going to be able to be done."

At one point in the interview, Biden referred to Nixon as Trump, but corrected himself and referenced it as a "Freudian slip."

He also repeatedly referenced speaking at the Gridiron Club this Saturday -- when he meant to say the White House Correspondents Dinner. The Gridiron Club already took place in March, and Biden spoke at it.

"I'm doing the Gridiron dinner on a Saturday, right? And one of the things -- a serious thing -- I'm going to say at the Gridiron dinner is that, you know, paraphrasing, Jefferson said a choice between what we have and a free press, I'd pick a free press."

He went on to accuse the press of not "speaking up" about Trump as much as they used to in the past.

"I haven't figured it out yet. But I think it's coming around. And I'm not blaming the press. I'm just saying. I think some of them are worried about attacking him; worried about taking him on."

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Biden administration has determined that three military battalions with the Israel Defense Forces committed "gross human rights violations" against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank but will remain eligible for U.S. military aid regardless because of steps Israel says it's taking to address the problem, ABC News has learned.

The administration assessment, which has not yet been made public and could change if Israel doesn't take specific steps, was outlined in an undated letter by Secretary of State Antony Blinken to House Speaker Mike Johnson obtained by ABC News.

The U.S. determination "will not delay the delivery of any U.S. assistance and Israel will be able to receive the full amount appropriated by Congress," Blinken wrote.

The allegations involving each of the units occurred before the Oct. 7 war began when Hamas attacked Israel. None of the cases involves operations against Hamas in Gaza or against Iran or its proxies.

Still, the decision is likely to roil critics of the Biden administration who say not enough is being done to hold Israel accountable for military operations in Gaza that have pushed the civilian population toward famine.

Issa Amro, a prominent Palestinian human rights activist who lives in the West Bank city of Hebron, said he was "disappointed" but not surprised by the U.S. decision.

The U.S. "is not doing concrete actions to reduce violence, to a minimum and to make peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis," he told ABC News.

Administration officials counter that its process in reviewing human rights violations has been fair and that Israel was not given preferential treatment. They also note that it's not uncommon for the U.S. to work with countries through a process known as "remediation" that can encourage foreign countries to weed out bad actors within their militaries.

"Each of these situations is different, and we have to do our best to collect the facts and follow the facts and that's what we're doing," Blinken told reporters Monday at a press briefing when pressed for details on the U.S. review.

Under a federal measure known as the Leahy Law, the U.S. military is required to withhold weapons, training and other military assistance to any foreign military unit that commits gross human rights abuses.

The law, however, allows an exception for countries that have taken steps "to bring to justice the responsible members of the unit," according to Blinken's letter.

According to a person familiar with the process, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a decision that hasn't been made public, the U.S. and Israel also have a special agreement that requires the U.S. to consult with the Israelis before making any decisions related to the Foreign Assistance Act.

The person said those consultations with Israel remain ongoing and that if a military unit is found not to take "satisfactory remediation or accountability measures," U.S. aid would then be restricted.

Overall, five units -- three military and two civilian -- were under review for human rights violations. According to Blinken's letter, four have undergone proper remediation steps.

Israel also has "acknowledged" that another IDF battalion had engaged in "conduct inconsistent" with Israel's rules. As a result, the unit was transferred from the West Bank to the Golan Heights in 2022, Blinken noted.

That description matches the Netzah Yehuda battalion, established for ultra-orthodox Jewish men.

"The Israeli government has presented new information regarding the status of the unit and we will engage on identifying a path to effective remediation for this unit," Blinken wrote.

"But this will have no impact on our support for Israel's ability to defend itself against Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, or other threats," he assured Johnson, a staunch supporter of Israel who helped push a foreign aid bill through Congress this week.

Blinken noted that no other units were found in violation of the Leahy Law.

The secretary spoke with top Israeli officials this week following reports by Axios and ProPublica that the U.S. planned to "sanction" IDF units.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would fight the Biden administration on such a move, calling it a "moral low."

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Prosecutors in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case said in court filings that a former Trump administration official told investigators that Trump, as president, had "no standing declassification order" regarding documents in his possession.

The filings, which are part of special counsel Jack Smith's response to a Trump legal team motion to compel discovery in the case, include notes from prosecutors' interview with a former administration official who the special counsel says "refused recording of the interview." The interview subject stated that having the interview recorded was a "far bigger risk for him in the Trump world," according to FBI notes on the interview, which were included in the filing.

The FBI notes, known as a 302, are heavily redacted, obscuring the name of the former official, who is only identified as Per[son] 16, with several pages blacked out in their entirety.

The former official, who had "free access to [Trump] and the Oval Office, and was in the Oval Office daily," told prosecutors there was "no standing declassification order," and that they had "never heard of that while in the White House."

After the FBI raided Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022 and retrieved more than 100 additional documents with classified markings, Trump's team issued a statement to one media outlet claiming that, while still in office, Trump had issued "a standing order that documents removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them."

Trump was subsequently indicted last June on 37 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information ranging from U.S. nuclear secrets to the nation's defense capabilities, and took steps to thwart the government's efforts to get the documents back. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.

While the new court filings do not change the narrative established in the special counsel's indictments, they offer a glimpse into the kinds of evidence Smith is prepared to bring to trial, including detailed testimony from Trump White House insiders.

In late October or early November of 2021, nearly a year before a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago was issued, the former official appealed to Trump to return government records, according to the filings.

"Whatever you have, give it all back," the filings quote the former official saying they told Trump.

The former official described an effort get multiple people close to Trump, including his children, to tell him, "There are issues with the boxes. They belong to the government, talk to your dad about giving them back. It's not worth the aggravation."

By late November of 2021, the warnings grew more stark, the former official told investigators. The former official describes telling Trump, who was dressed in golf attire, "Whatever you have, give everything back. Don't give them a reason to indict you, because they will."

Trump responded with a "weird 'you're the man' type of response," the former official told investigators.

A separate exhibit filed with the government's response details an FBI interview about the National Archives and Records Administration's efforts to locate missing government records, including letters from President Barack Obama and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

That interview, with another former Trump administration official whose name is redacted but is identified as "Per[son] 40," describes how Trump was "fond of certain documents," including the North Korean letters.

That official took detailed notes about records management during the Trump administration, and those notes describe another Trump White House official, only identified as Per[son] 14, stating that the former president did not "trust the system."

During a conversation in which Person 40 brought up that boxes of documents Trump kept in his residence need to go NARA, Person 14 responded, "NARA and what army?"

Person 40's notes, according to the new filings, describe Trump's "habits" of handling documents in the White House, "which included destroying, tearing them up and/or throwing them away," and indicated that those habits did not change when they became known publicly after being published in a Politico story.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

He denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have "absolute immunity" for any "official acts" while in office.

His name and the specifics of the case were rarely mentioned -- just a handful of times -- as the justices, over the course of nearly three hours, grappled with questions about what their ruling will mean for the future of the presidency and how that should be reconciled with the principle of the rule of law.

The former president, who lamented not attending arguments in Washington as he is on trial in New York in a separate criminal trial, in which he has pleaded not guilty, was represented by attorney John Sauer.

Michael Dreeben argued on behalf of the government and special counsel Jack Smith. Smith last year brought four felony counts against Trump, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to remain in power after losing to now-President Joe Biden.

Here are five key takeaways from the arguments:

Hypotheticals like coup, assassinations dominate

The question of presidential immunity sparked an array of "what if" scenarios from the justices as well as multiple citations to past presidential choices ranging from what was done by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and others.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, minutes into the arguments, raised the question of whether criminal immunity would extend to a president ordering the military, or someone else, to assassinate a political rival if they believed this person was "corrupt"

Sauer affirmed that such a decision could "well be an official act" excluded from prosecution, telling Sotomayor, "It would depend on the hypothetical."

At another point, Justice Elena Kagan asked the Trump attorney: "How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup?"

Sauer said that, likewise, under her hypothetical, that could "well be" official behavior of the president though "it would depend on the circumstances."

"It certainly sounds very bad," he conceded, "and that's why the framers [of the Constitution] have -- and that's why the framers have a whole series of structural checks that have successfully, for the last 234 years, prevented that very kind of extreme hypothetical, and that is the wisdom of the framers."

He maintained that the only time a president could be criminally prosecuted was if they were impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for the same crime.

Even then, Sauer later suggested, there would have to be a criminal statute against coups expressly referencing the president.

Some justices also raised questions about whether presidents could pardon themselves, and both attorneys said it's an issue that's never been addressed before and has no precedent.

Private vs. official acts and concessions from Trump's attorney

Central to Thursday's arguments was what would qualify as an "official" act of the presidency that may be protected by a finding of immunity versus what constitutes private conduct.

In one instance, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked a series of probing questions of Sauer about conduct alleged in Smith's indictment and whether Trump's attorneys considered them private or official acts.

Sauer conceded some acts in the indictment were unprotected, including his allegations that Trump turned to a private attorney who knowingly spread false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to 2020 election results and that he conspired with others to implement a plan to obstruct the certification of President Joe Biden's win.

Justice Kagan pressed Dreeben about what the government would consider official and unofficial, or private, conduct. Dreeben said core executive functions, like pardon power, vetoing legislation, foreign recognition and more have absolute protection.

But organizing a false slate of electors, a key allegation in Smith's indictment, is "campaign conduct" and not official.

"That's not any part of a president's job," Dreeben said.

Conservatives worried about bad faith prosecutions

Several conservative-leaning justices expressed concerns about the potential for bad faith prosecutions against a president.

Chief Justice John Roberts raised concern about the lower court ruling, specifically that its position could put too much faith in the justice system to act non-politically and out of good faith.

DOJ's Dreeben responded that there are "layered safeguards" that protect against malicious prosecution.

"We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecution in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence, or politically driven prosecution that would violate the Constitution," Dreeben said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested concerns about a vicious cycle of malicious prosecutions hampering presidents for years to come. He also raised the question of the "risk" of a "creative prosecutor" using "vague" statutes -- including obstruction and conspiracy, which Trump faces -- against a commander in chief.

Justice Samuel Alito also appeared skeptical of Smith's use of at least some of the conspiracy and fraud-related charges, asking if the conspiracy statute wasn't "peculiarly open-ended."

In response, Dreeben said: "It is designed to protect the functions of the United States government, and it is difficult to think of a more critical function than the certification of who won the election."

Will the court send the case back?

Several conservative justices also raised the question of whether to remand the case back down to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia (which rejected the immunity claim in sweeping terms) to conduct further proceedings.

Remanding the case would -- perhaps significantly -- delay Trump's Jan. 6 trial even past the November election. The trial was set for March 4 but is on pause until the immunity question is resolved in the judicial system.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was the first to suggest further proceedings could be required to determine what is an official act and what is private and thus more open to prosecution.

"What concerns me is, as you know, the court of appeals did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we're talking about or what documents we're talking about," Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Sotomayor pressed back on the notion of remanding the case, arguing that even in the instances of acts that could be considered official, they came in the context of Trump pushing forward in his "private" intent of remaining in office despite losing the election.

'A rule for the ages'

Justices emphasized throughout arguments that they were not only considering the immediate case involving Trump, but what these questions mean for the future of the country.

"We're writing a rule for the ages," Gorsuch said.

Justice Samuel Alito noted whatever that the high court decides "is going to apply to all future presidents."

The criminal immunity question is a novel one, as Trump is the first president (current or former) to be criminally charged.

The closest a former commander-in-chief came was President Richard Nixon, who resigned in 1974 rather than be impeached and was later pardoned by his successor -- which was mentioned by the justices during Thursday's hearing.

The justices grappled with that unprecedented nature and what it would mean for a president to have too much or too little protection for any actions taken while in office, including perpetually controversial decisions like those amid war or when addressing national security.

"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 said.

But Sauer indicated that such problems hadn't occurred so far.

"I respectfully disagree with that because the regime you described is the regime we operated under for 234 years," he said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- As the NFL draft kicks off this week, President Joe Biden's campaign is launching a new digital ad on Thursday taking aim at former President Donald Trump's past comments disparaging football and the league, the Biden campaign told ABC News.

The short, 20-second ad, on YouTube, features a montage of Trump previously attacking football, calling it "boring as hell" and saying "nobody cares about football," juxtaposed with Biden greeting and touting his relationship with football players.

The ad -- the latest skirmish in the early part of Biden's general election fight against Trump, which is expected to be close -- ends with the message: "Make the right pick in November."

The ad plays into the longstanding feud between the NFL and Trump, who had once owned rival United States Football League team the New Jersey Generals in the 1980s and reportedly tried to buy the Buffalo Bills in 2014 but was unsuccessful after investors doubted the NFL would allow it.

Trump has repeated attacks on football and more specifically the NFL over the years, including during his presidency when he railed against NFL players who kneeled during the national anthem as part of a protest against systematic bias against people of color.

However, Trump has had close ties to some notable figures in football, including quarterback Tom Brady and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

He has also frequented tailgates and college football games on the campaign trail, including attending the famed University of Iowa Hawkeyes versus Iowa State University Cyclones game and the Palmetto Bowl between the South Carolina Gamecocks and the Clemson University Tigers last year as the Republican Party's Iowa caucuses and the South Carolina primary were heating up.

According to the Biden campaign, the new ad will target football fans across battleground states including in Green Bay, Wisconsin; in Detroit; in Phoenix; and in Pittsburgh. The ad will also air in Atlanta, Charlotte, North Carolina, and Las Vegas.

Second gentleman Douglas Emhoff, who is attending the NFL draft in Michigan on Thursday night, claimed in a statement that while the rest of the country will be celebrating football, Trump will be "sitting on the sidelines trying to make tonight about himself, rage-posting on his failing social media platform and spewing his extreme, divisive, and historically unpopular agenda."

The first clip used in the ad shows Trump at a rally in Henderson, Nevada, on the first Sunday of the 2020 NFL season, where the then-president urged the audience to sit down and get comfortable before stating they had plenty of time as "football is boring as hell."

He added: "Used to be people would say, 'Hey, could you keep it away from, from a football game?' Now they say, 'Could you possibly do it during a football game?'"

In the second clip, from a 2020 rally in Nevada's capital, Carson City, Trump said, "Nobody cares about football. They ought to get smart because they can't win this war. We want people that love our country."

Trump has repeatedly disparaged NFL players kneeling over the years, claiming they've gotten too "soft" and calling for them to be suspended.

"The NFL players are at it again - taking a knee when they should be standing proudly for the National Anthem," Trump wrote on X, then called Twitter, in 2018. "Numerous players, from different teams, wanted to show their "outrage" at something that most of them are unable to define. They make a fortune doing what they love."

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.