Author

admin

Browsing

Internet service providers including Charter, Verizon and Comcast are shifting customers away from the Affordable Connectivity Program, an expired federal internet subsidy that helped low-income households pay for broadband, according to earnings calls and people familiar with the matter.

The $14.2 billion program, which went into effect in December 2021, served roughly 23 million households, two-thirds of which had either inconsistent or zero internet access prior to enrolling, according to a December survey from the Federal Communications Commission. It provided a discount of up to $30 per month for some qualifying households and up to $75 a month for households on eligible tribal land.

But it officially ended in June after Congress decided not to renew its funding.

Since the ACP lapsed, some Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been working to bring back the program.

But broadband companies have been focused on transitioning their customers to other affordable options to help them make up the expired discount, according to the companies’ earnings calls.

In the wake of the ACP’s expiration, broadband companies have reported losing some customers. But overall, they have weathered the storm better than expected, according to analysts’ notes and to executives’ comments in recent earnings reports.

“Generally speaking, the impact on the companies so far is less than feared,” said analyst Craig Moffett of MoffettNathanson. “But that doesn’t take away from the families for whom this was important, and could now lose access to broadband.” 

And though broadband companies supported ACP’s renewal before it expired, since then they have done little to revive the program, given uncertainty over where the funding would come from, according to the people familiar with the matter, who were granted anonymity due to the private nature of these discussions.

Part of that uncertainty comes from the unknown future of party control in Congress given the November election.

“I know the difference between when industry really wants something to happen, and when they say, ‘Well, we support it, sure,’ but they don’t put money into advertising, they don’t put money into lobbyists, they don’t put money into doing the kind of studies that support the case,” New Street Research analyst Blair Levin told CNBC.

Charter and Comcast representatives declined to comment. Verizon did not respond to requests for comment.

Comcast owns NBCUniversal, the parent company of CNBC and NBC News.

Both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House have brought forward bills that would spend between $6 billion and $7 billion to relaunch the ACP, at least temporarily.

“My hope is that we can get something done rather quickly, especially as kids are getting ready to go back to school,” said Rep. Mike Carey, R-Ohio, in August. He jointly proposed the House bill with Rep. Nikki Budzinski, D-Ill.

The ACP was originally funded as the Emergency Broadband Benefit program, a pandemic-era internet subsidy that quickly gained support when reliable access became a necessity in a world dominated by online school and work. 

Internet usage soared in 2020 and 2021. Even now, usage levels are well above pre-pandemic levels, according to broadband data provider Open Vault.

But as Covid grows more distant in public memory, convincing lawmakers to spend billions to extend these subsidies has become an uphill battle.

One key reason is election year timing.

For example, GOP Sen. JD Vance of Ohio was one of the lead supporters of the ACP. But after he was tapped to be Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s running mate, Vance quieted his advocacy.

In Congress, both the Republican House majority and Democratic control of the Senate could flip in November. This means Democratic leaders may choose to put other priorities ahead of the ACP, while they still control the Senate.

“This is going to be a really close election, so maybe they want to use floor time for judicial nominations,” Gigi Sohn, a consumer broadband advocate and lawyer whom President Joe Biden nominated to be an FCC commissioner, said in an interview with CNBC.

Still, Sohn believes bipartisan support for the ACP should make reauthorizing it a political slam dunk for Democrats.

“This is one of the things that absolutely perplexes me, because to me, this is the kind of thing you absolutely want to do in an election year.”

As the Sept. 30 government funding deadline inches closer, congressional leaders are heads-down on the scramble to pass a stopgap funding bill to avert a shutdown, pushing the ACP further down the priority list. After September, Congress is expected to be out on recess until after the election.

As some Capitol Hill lawmakers cling to the narrowing possibility of an ACP comeback, the private sector is reining in its hopes.

″[ISPs] are making their plans, they are telling Wall Street that this thing is dead and they’re just not putting effort into it,” Sohn said.

While broadband providers were generally supportive of the ACP, many in the industry believed the subsidy benefitted too wide a swath of U.S. households. In some instances customers used the benefit toward other products, such as mobile or pay TV.

For example, one in four New York households used the ACP, per a White House fact sheet released in February.

Starting from scratch with a new subsidy program, while also building digital literacy among low income consumers, could be a better alternative after the election, some people close to the companies say.

And disillusioned with the temporary model, industry players are more likely to lobby for permanent solutions like strengthening the Universal Service Fund, according to Sohn. But that comes with its own set of political obstacles, especially after a federal court found the USF to be unconstitutional.

With or without private sector resources, lawmakers assure they will not quit the push to bring the ACP back.

“What we’re focused on is the near-term problem,” Carey said. “Then we can build consensus to look at something for a longer-term plan.”

But dwindling support from industry partners casts doubt on the ACP’s future because companies are ultimately the ones who deliver the internet service and can help educate customers about the program.

“Industry is one voice in this because they are the structure providing this service,” Budzinski told CNBC. “It’s important that they be at the table.”

The ACP’s expiration has also cast a shadow over some businesses — namely the companies that had invested heavily in getting new and existing customers enrolled in the program.

Charter Communications CEO Chris Winfrey said in July that the ACP’s expiration impacted both losses and low income broadband connections after the company had “put a lot of effort into the ACP program.”

Charter was one of the ACP’s biggest industry proponents: It received roughly $910 million from the program from 2022 to February 2023, according to FCC dataComcast and Verizon each received over $200 million from the program. 

When Congress decided not to renew ACP funding, these companies were forced to absorb the shock at a time when cable companies have already seen broadband customer growth stagnate due to heightened competition and a slowdown in home sales.

Charter and Comcast representatives declined to comment. Verizon did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

During the second quarter, Charter reported a loss of 149,000 internet customers, while Comcast reported a decline of 120,000 broadband customers. While some of this could be attributed to the ACP, the companies expect the biggest impacts to be felt in the third quarter.

Since the ACP ended, companies have tried to help customers transition to low income or different internet plans, in some cases reverting back to plans they had before the subsidy.

Comcast said in July that it has been helping customers migrate to other broadband plans.

Charter has tried to retain its low-income consumer base by rolling out new savings deals like offering ACP customers a free unlimited mobile line for one year. Others like Verizon decided to just pencil in the financial hit of the customer loss, reporting a loss of 410,000 prepaid wireless subscribers in its second quarter earnings. 

The initial bottom-line pain of the ACP’s lapse so far appears to be milder than what some company leaders and analysts had initially expected. But the process is far from over.

“We’ve only seen the first chapter so far, in that we’ve only seen the impact on gross additions. But we haven’t yet seen the impact on bad debt and unpaid disconnects,” Moffett of MoffettNathanson told CNBC. “That will come in the third quarter.” 

CORRECTION (Sept. 11, 5:56 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article misstated Gigi Sohn’s appointment to the FCC. She was nominated but withdrew before becoming a commissioner.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Donald Trump’s success in the 2016 Republican nominating contest was largely a function of his willingness to embrace and elevate dangerous, hateful and false claims from the rightmost fringe of Republican rhetoric. There was a whole galaxy of assertions and arguments on blogs and social media that even Fox News kept at arm’s length, but there were a lot of disaffected people on the right who believed them and were frustrated that Republican officials didn’t parrot them.

Trump did. This was the genesis of his “straight talker” reputation, and it allowed him to build a big, loyal base of support that powered him to the nomination. Once he won, and he and his supporters made clear that fealty was a requirement, the rest of the party slowly fell in line.

By now, there is no meaningful space to Trump’s right and there is no meaningful political conversation on the right that isn’t defined by Trump. There are Republicans and conservatives who oppose Trump and criticize his politics, but they have no power. The power sits with, and flows from, Trump.

And that means he is no longer the outsider, the guy saying things that lack a voice. He is, instead, the guy who is primarily responsible for defining or validating what’s said. He’s the king of MAGAland, and while there are other prominent members of the peerage — Elon Musk, Fox News, Tucker Carlson, etc. — it is Trump’s voice that remains supreme because it is to him that the base is most loyal.

It also means that he no longer knows how to talk to anyone outside of that world, as was obvious during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday night.

Trump talks a lot, giving lengthy speeches at rallies and lots of interviews to sycophantic interviewers (Musk, Fox News, etc.). He has a habit of, over time, distilling points to little sound bites, familiar phrases and references that his base understands without having to say more. They’ve created a shared vernacular over the course of the past nine years, and Trump is used to making vague references and getting a knowing response.

On the debate stage, though, these references landed very differently. His clumsy, incomplete reference to the false claim that immigrants in Ohio were eating people’s pets was incomprehensible to people not tuned in to the political conversation and, particularly, to the pro-Trump conversational universe. Even some of those sympathetic to Trump understood that this was a miss.

But he couldn’t help it. Trump is so used to having audiences who agree with him — diners at Mar-a-Lago, podcasters who are friends with his son — that he was visibly flustered by the response he got on the stage. In the Skinner box that is campaigning, applause and recognition are the rewards Trump seeks. In that room, no matter which of his most popular riffs he threw out, he wasn’t getting what he wanted.

Viktor Orban? No? Ashli Babbitt? That name usually triggers a big response. How about “peacefully and patriotically”? Trump’s supporters understand that this phrase is meant to absolve him of culpability for the Capitol riot. Did viewers at home know what he meant?

It was more frustrating still because Harris kept pushing his buttons. Trump’s triggers are as big and obvious as his ties, and Harris kept priming them. Trump — again, not used to this! — kept taking big bites of the bait. Even if he wanted to say something that his campaign advisers had suggested, first he had to defend his crowd size or his tenure at the Wharton School of Business or whatever other insecurity Harris drew into the spotlight.

And then there were the moderators, a focus of particular ire among Trump’s supporters (who, of course, have learned that there’s no reward earned from criticizing Trump). ABC News’s David Muir and Linsey Davis challenged the candidates and gave them the chance to engage with one another. But they also refused to allow Trump to make significant false claims without noting that they were false.

No, immigrants aren’t eating pets. No, crime isn’t up. No, the 2020 election wasn’t stolen. No, it’s not legal in blue states to kill a newborn. There’s obvious value in having the moderators clarify factual points instead of leaving it to one of the candidates, as though these things are a matter of debate. Nor did they correct all of Trump’s myriad lies, like that he “had nothing to do with” the rally outside the White House on Jan. 6, 2021. But Trump and his allies are used to a universe in which they say false things and they all agree with each other that they are true, or at least true enough.

Trump also wasn’t corrected when he claimed that he “probably took a bullet to the head because of the things that they” — Biden and Harris — “say about me.” In his world, this is true enough: “They” wanted Trump dead and the assassination attempt was the result. In the real world, there’s no evidence the shooting was anything other than an unstable young man seeking attention — a John Hinckley attack, not a John Wilkes Booth one. But no one ever presses Trump on this stuff, so he just threw out this conspiracy theory that would have been a winner at a rally.

By any objective measure, Harris fared better in the debate than Trump did. This doesn’t mean that the state of the race has changed much. Trump may be incapable of appealing to those outside of his base, but his base is big and engaged and has been enough for him to secure just under 50 percent of the vote in the past two presidential elections. One reason he sticks to the same patter is that it works in keeping his base loyal.

But Harris’s victory did offer one more opportunity to demonstrate how distant from reality Trump’s claims sit. He took the unusual step of visiting the “spin room” after the debate, where he insisted to reporters that polling had shown that he won the debate easily. He shared some of these “polls” on his account at Truth Social; they were almost uniformly online surveys conducted by Trump-sympathetic social media accounts, the functional equivalent of taking a straw poll of people’s favorite baseball teams at Fenway Park.

It is in this world that Trump lives. It is to this world that Trump is used to speaking. It is this world’s belief system that Trump reflects. It’s his worldview — and either you agree or Trump doesn’t really have anything to say to you.

“Donald Trump has no plan for you,” Harris said more than once, speaking to undecided voters. This was an easier argument to make when any plan Trump had to offer was presented in the foreign language spoken by residents of Trumpworld.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

In one of her effective efforts to goad Donald Trump during their debate on Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris told the viewing audience he didn’t engender the level of international respect he often claims.

“I’m going to tell you that I have traveled the world as vice president of the United States,” Harris said. “And world leaders are laughing at Donald Trump.”

She went on to say that military leaders viewed Trump as a “disgrace” and to criticize Trump’s efforts to block Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. But, given an opportunity by the moderator to respond, Trump went back to that assertion about the world leaders.

“Let me just tell you about world leaders,” he began. “Viktor Orbán, one of the most respected men — they call him a ‘strongman.’ He’s a tough person. Smart. Prime Minister of Hungary. They said why is the whole world blowing up? Three years ago it wasn’t. Why is it blowing up? He said because you need Trump back as president. They were afraid of him.”

If you listen to Trump with any regularity, you’ve likely heard some version of this before. Trump brings it up a lot, this claim from Orbán — who is not normally considered one of the “most respected men’ — that Trump’s strength kept the global peace. It plays to Trump’s vanity, for one thing, and Orbán is one of the few global leaders willing to overtly take Trump’s side politically.

That’s in part because Orbán likely recognizes Trump as a disruptive agent in the Western world order. It’s probably in part, too, because Trump, echoing others in the American right, reciprocates that support. But it is also clearly because Trump approves of Orbán’s autocratic tendencies.

What isn’t clear is whether Trump realizes that’s what’s meant when Orbán is described as a ‘strongman.’ It seems that he often, if not always, thinks that the term being applied is ‘strong man,’ with the emphasis on the second word, not the first. This would certainly explain why he keeps using the pejorative to describe someone he clearly likes.

When he spoke in The Bronx in May, Trump trotted out the story about Orbán and his compliment.

“Viktor Orbán, did you ever hear of him? Prime Minister of Hungary, very tough guy,” Trump said. “Known as a strongman. Oh, they hate it when I talk about him, because they say, ‘He’s a strongman; Trump loves strongmen.’ I don’t know, I like weak men, actually, I like weak men. I’d much rather have a weak man than a strong man. But he is a strong man.”

‘Weak man’ is the opposite of ‘strong man,’ not ‘strongman.’ And Trump’s phrasing suggested that he thought the criticism of Orbán was that he was somehow too strong, not that he was hostile to liberal democracy.

Speaking to right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt last month, Trump referred to Orbán as a ‘very strong guy, and a good person,’ reinforcing the idea that he just sees ‘strong’ as a compliment. Which would make sense, given that Trump himself has long used ‘strong’ as a compliment for people he likes.

Back in 2008, for example, he was on Fox News and praised that year’s Republican presidential nominee: Sen. John S. McCain, who Trump would later (infamously) disparage for having been a prisoner of war.

‘I’ve known Senator McCain for a long time,’ Trump said. ‘He’s a great guy, a great man. He’s just a very strong guy, a very strong leader, and he’s very, very smart.’

In 2003, he used the same term to describe Arnold Schwarzenegger, then seeking election as governor of California. (Schwarzenegger, too, would later be disparaged by Trump.)

‘He’s a really honorable guy,’ Trump said, ‘and, you know, what he says he’s going to do, and he’s also a strong man who’s made really some incredibly good business decisions.’

Strong man, two words. Certainly true in the case of the former bodybuilder.

As this year’s presidential campaign has heated up, Trump has repeatedly spoken about Orbán’s comments and often mentioned the strength of the man they came from.

‘Viktor Orbán, prime minister of Hungary, is a very tough guy,’ he said on Fox in early June. ‘He’s known as a strong man.’ Emphasis on ‘man.’

‘Viktor Orbán said just recently — he’s a strong man from a very interesting country,’ he told Dr. Phil McGraw a few days later. ‘And he knows Russia very well.’

‘The prime minister of Hungary, a very tough man, strong man, very — you know, somebody that I always got along with,’ he said at a North Carolina rally in August. ‘I get along with the strong ones. I don’t get along with the weak ones.’

That much is true. Speaking at Turning Point Action event in Arizona in June, Trump referred to another foreign ally, Chinese President Xi Jinping, as a ‘strong guy,’ though ‘strongman’ would certainly also apply. (He also described his ally Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) as ‘tough’ and ‘strong’ in those same remarks.) But more often than not, the ‘strong man’ Trump is praising is Viktor Orbán.

Since Orbán took power in Hungary, the nation has seen its democratic institutions weakened and Orbán’s power grow. Two years ago, the European parliament determined that Hungary no longer met the standard to be considered a full democracy but was, instead, a ‘electoral autocracy.’ An autocracy run by an autocrat. A strongman.

Trump, though, hears this as ‘strong man,’ a term of praise for someone willing to be tough. He doesn’t seem to understand that it is, instead, a pejorative term for a leader who holds and wields power without democratic constraint.

But, then, Trump might consider that a term of praise, too.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

NEW YORK — Vice President Kamala Harris and her Republican rival Donald Trump on Wednesday morning both arrived here in Lower Manhattan, the site of the worst terrorist attack in American history, each pausing for a moment of solemn commemoration in the midst of a frenetic political season.

They stood feet away from one another, joined by President Joe Biden and GOP vice-presidential nominee JD Vance, and listened as bagpipes wailed, as moments of silence were held and names of victims were read by family members.

It was an abrupt shift in tone after an aggressive debate Tuesday night, one that Trump has complained about and one that filled the Harris team with jubilation. Harris and Trump briefly greeted one another — and Biden and Trump did as well — before taking their respective spots.

Harris and Biden are traveling together later Wednesday to Shanksville, Pa., the rural area where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a field 23 years ago, and to Arlington, Va., where American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Harris’s team made it clear that Wednesday’s events would have no hint of politics as she honors those who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks. But Harris, Biden, Trump and Vance all standing together at the New York memorial was a striking tableau in a political cycle in which Harris has — in both direct and subtle ways — attempted to reclaim the mantle of patriotism that has been more associated with Trump and Republicans over the past decade.

A core message in her campaign is that she would put the interests of all Americans above her own, while she paints her opponent as a “self-serving” agent of chaos who would endanger the country’s military and national security. She crisply delivered that case in Tuesday night’s debate, and her campaign is intensely focused on drawing voters’ attention to Trump’s past remarks disparaging members of the military. They also hope voters will revisit Trump’s embrace of conspiracy theories, including his insistence that he won the 2020 election and his revisionist descriptions of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump exhibited that same behavior more than 20 years ago when he made questionable claims about what he witnessed during the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. (Trump said at the time, for example, that he watched as thousands of Muslims cheered in Jersey City, when the buildings came down, an assertion that has been debunked).

The candidates did not speak during the morning event, with the focus on listening to family members of the victims. Some were children, born after the attacks, while others recalled memories of an uncle, cousin, father or sibling. Trump was joined by his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., with Rudy Giuliani seated nearby, while Harris was near Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.)

“Today is a day of solemn remembrance as we mourn the souls we lost in a heinous terrorist attack on September 11, 2001,” Harris said in a statement ahead of arriving here. “As we commemorate this day,” she added, “we should all reflect on what binds us together as one: the greatest privilege on Earth, the pride and privilege of being an American.”

Trump began the morning with an interview with “Fox & Friends” in which he complained about the debate moderators, cited lopsided polls declaring him the winner, and said he was “less inclined” to agree to another debate, as Harris has proposed.

“It was three to one. It was a rigged deal, as I assumed it would be,” he said on Fox News. “But I thought I did a great job.”

Trump briefly touched on the Sept. 11 attacks during his Fox interview, calling it “very sad” as he noted he would visit the crash sites in New York and Pennsylvania. “It was a horrible day. Horrible day. There’s never been anything like it. Just a horrible day.”

During his nearly decade-long stint in the public arena, Trump has infused his appearances with patriotic themes — from the frequent chants of “USA! USA!” that he sparks at his rallies to the moment at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2020 when he hugged and kissed an American flag onstage while mouthing “I love you, baby.”

Since Harris launched her presidential campaign in July, she has tried to reframe the patriotism debate — positioning herself as a leader who would fight to preserve America’s freedoms, including reproductive rights, while casting Trump as someone who would restrict them. Those themes are a continual thread at her rallies, particularly as she seeks to broaden her appeal to more conservative voters whom Trump has alienated with his tone and tactics.

The vice president reintroduced herself to the nation in her convention speech as the product of an American story — a middle-class daughter of immigrants who was able rise to the highest echelons of power because of the unique opportunities that her country offered. The Harris campaign has also tried to elevate past criticism of Trump from former military leaders and Trump’s former aides — including former vice president Mike Pence, former defense secretary Mark T. Esper and Gen. Mark A. Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Harris forcefully made that case herself Tuesday night in the debate, telling Trump that former military leaders have described him to her as “a disgrace” and faulting the former president for failing to accept any responsibility violence that occurred on Jan. 6 at the Capitol.

“For everyone watching, who remembers what January 6th was, I say, we don’t have to go back.,” Harris said Tuesday night. “It’s time to turn the page. And if that was a bridge too far for you, well, there is a place in our campaign for you to stand for country, to stand for our democracy, to stand for rule of law and to end the chaos and to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy because you don’t like the outcome.”

Over the past week, Harris’s campaign has deployed high-profile Republicans to argue that patriotic Americans should back the vice president, even if they don’t agree with her ideological positioning. GOP surrogates like former Pence adviser Olivia Troye and Anthony Scaramucci, who briefly served as Trump’s White House Communications director, drove that message in Philadelphia this week. Both highlighted the importance of the recent announcements by former vice president Dick Cheney and his daughter, former congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), that they will be voting for Harris.

“The Cheneys look at Vice President Harris’s economic agenda, her ideas around national security and they know that it’s in line with the arc of American history,” Scaramucci said Tuesday before the debate. “There’s nothing radical about it, and I think it gives space and comfort to normal Republicans — not Trumpist Republicans, but normal Republicans and independent moderates — that Vice President Harris is the right choice in this current election.”

Trump, by contrast, has sought to portray Harris as a failed and ineffective leader, faulting her for the deaths of U.S. citizens in the Afghanistan withdrawal.

“They didn’t fire anybody having to do with Afghanistan and the Taliban and the 13 people whose were just killed viciously and violently,” Trump said during the debate. “And I got to know the parents and the family.”

Trump recently visited Arlington National Cemetery at the request of some of those family members, with some of his campaign officials getting into an altercation with a cemetery staff member who was attempting to enforce guidelines the campaign had received not to take photos and videos near the graves of U.S. service members killed in recent years. His campaign later posted a video of the visit on his social media accounts.

But Brian Hughes, a Trump spokesman, scoffed at Harris’s embrace of patriotic themes, arguing that she’s “saying what she needs to say, because she thinks this is what the voters need to hear.”

“The idea that somebody who let one of the worst military incidents — the withdrawal from Afghanistan — happen on her watch, refuses to acknowledge the loss of the families that were left behind — and then wants to tell me about patriotism? Come on,” Hughes said in an interview.

If memorials of Sept. 11 in the past provided a rare moment of national unity — with Republican and Democratic leaders embracing on the Senate floor and a nation cheering along as President George W. Bush spoke from a bullhorn atop the rubble in New York — the current moment has been one of bitter partisanship.

Trump is a longtime New Yorker whose views on immigration appeared to harden with the attacks. On that morning in 2001, Trump was watching CNBC as it prepared to interview former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, when the network cut away to a scene of the first tower on fire. One of his first reactions when the planes hit was to call a television show to offer commentary.

He later visited Ground Zero, and he has cited the attacks to challenge immigration policies, religious tolerance and the need for global alliances.

Trump has claimed that he saw the plane strike the second tower, and that from his window he observed the tragedy of people jumping from the buildings — claims that fact-checkers have questioned.

Trump called into a New Jersey radio station that day and was asked what he would do if he were president.

“Well, I’d be taking a very, very tough line,” Trump said. “This just can’t be tolerated. And it’s got to be very, very stern.”

He also remarked that a building he owned had been the second-tallest in Manhattan but, now that the twin towers had fallen, would become the tallest. (That also was inaccurate; a different building held that title).

Harris has spoken of the Sept. 11 attacks as an enduring reminder that unity in America is possible, even at moments of intense partisanship. In remarks at the Flight 93 National Memorial in Shanksville on the 20th anniversary of 9/11, Harris said America was reminded in the days following attacks that “unity is imperative in America.”

“It is essential to our shared prosperity, to our national security, and to our standing in the world. And by unity, I don’t mean uniformity,” Harris said at the 2021 event that also featured former president George W. Bush and his wife, Laura Bush. “We had differences of opinion in 2001 as we do in 2021. And I believe that in America, our diversity is our strength.”

Trump hasn’t often spoke with passion about 9/11, but he did invoke it during a 2016 Republican primary debate when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) criticized him for “New York values.”

“When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on Earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely, than New York,” Trump said. “You had two 110-story buildings come crashing down. I saw them come down. And we saw more death, and even the smell of death, nobody understood it. And it was with us for months, the smell, the air. And we rebuilt downtown Manhattan.”

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

There are a number of reasons that conducting political polling is tricky. The one with which people are most familiar is that it’s not easy to contact respondents. (It is not the case, though, that pollsters rely on landline telephones to do so.) A more important consideration is that the results depend on the pollsters having a good sense of the electorate; that is, who’s likely to turn out to vote. That then informs how the results are weighted to be representative. So if the turnout model is off, the results will be, too.

Polling conducted well in advance of an election has another disadvantage: It’s hard to account for the effects of the campaign itself. Not just unpredictable elements but predictable ones, such as voters learning more about candidates’ backgrounds, biographies and priorities.

Or, say, voters considering the historic nature of a candidacy.

In August, The Washington Post looked at polling from Fairleigh Dickinson University that included a novel element, presenting poll respondents with subtle reminders about Vice President Kamala Harris’s race or gender before asking them their vote choice. Those who were given reminders were more likely to indicate that they preferred Harris.

Polling released this week by 19th News, conducted by SurveyMonkey, approached the issue slightly differently. That poll asked respondents whom they preferred, and found Harris with a three-percentage-point lead over former president Donald Trump. Then respondents were asked a follow-up question, measuring how enthusiastic they were about their votes.

Except Harris’s supporters were asked one of two different questions. Half were simply asked, “How excited are you to vote for Kamala Harris?” The other half were asked the same question, but with a lead-in: “Given that Kamala Harris will be the first woman to be president, how excited are you to be voting for her?”

In general, Harris supporters were slightly more likely than Trump supporters to say they were “very excited” to vote for their chosen candidate. When Harris’s gender was mentioned, though, there was a surge in enthusiasm for her — but only among women.

The size of the respondent poll allowed SurveyMonkey to break out a number of interesting and unusual demographic groups in its responses. It allows us to see, for example, that — in contrast to popular understanding — divorced men are less supportive of Trump (a four-point lead) than are married men (among whom Trump has a 12-point lead) or men overall (an eight-point lead).

It also allows us to see interesting differences in the shift in enthusiasm between Harris supporters who were (the end of the arrows below) and weren’t (the outlined circle) reminded of the history her election would make.

(Subgroups for which no data are shown were too small in number to warrant inclusion. There aren’t a lot of Democrats planning to vote for Trump, for example.)

The length of the arrows — the difference between those two groups — is not necessarily indicative of a huge shift. It may, instead, be a reflection of smaller groups having bigger margins of error, which happens in polling. But one can’t ignore that mentions of the history at stake had a broad effect on women that simply doesn’t appear with men.

As we noted with the Fairleigh Dickinson poll, this certainly doesn’t mean that Harris should predicate her appeals to voters on her gender. It may, however, be useful for the campaign to have targeted voices remind women of the history at stake as voting approaches.

Or, at least, that’s what this poll suggests at this point. And, as we know, polling is tricky.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

Delaware State Sen. Sarah McBride won the Democratic primary for the state’s at-large U.S. House seat Tuesday night, clearing the path for her to make history as the first openly transgender person in Congress.

McBride defeated Wilmington businessman Earl Cooper and financier Elias Weir in the Democratic primary with just under 80 percent of votes, according to the state’s Department of Elections website. In November she will face John Whalen III, who won Tuesday’s Republican primary.

The seat is seen as a solid Democratic seat, according to Cook Political Report. Democrats have held the seat continuously since 2010.

McBride is looking forward to the November election, she said in a statement to The Washington Post.

“Alongside the immense amount of gratitude I feel, I also feel the deep sense of responsibility that comes with being the nominee,” she wrote. “Because while today we celebrate a victory in our primary, our work is far from over. Our rights and our freedoms — our dignity and our democracy — are on the line in this election. But so too is the promise of tomorrow. Because we aren’t here just because of what’s at risk, we are also here because of what is possible.”

McBride announced last July she would run to replace Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), who is running for the seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).

McBride first made history as the country’s first openly transgender state senator when she won her election in November 2020.

She previously had made history, first in 2012 when she became the first openly transgender person to serve as a White House intern during President Barack Obama’s tenure, then in 2016 when she became the first transgender person to speak at that year’s Democratic National Convention.

Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization against gun violence, endorsed McBride’s campaign last month. Angela Ferrell-Zabala, the executive director of Moms Demand Action and a spokesperson for Everytown, said the organization couldn’t be happier about McBride’s primary win.

“With a proven track record of championing common-sense gun safety laws in the Delaware legislature, there is no one better suited for this seat,” Ferrell-Zabala said. “Sarah understands that gun violence is an intersectional issue. She gets that any threat to the safety of one community, should be taken a threat to all communities.”

Planned Parenthood Action Fund also endorsed McBride’s campaign in February. Planned Parenthood of Delaware president April Thomas-Jones said she feels McBride is the right choice to represent the state.

“As the first African American leader of Planned Parenthood of Delaware, I know the invisible barriers that prevent progress and social change all too well,” Thomas-Jones said. “I proudly stand with Sarah McBride as she not only shatters invisible ceilings, but also paves the way for others to join her. Delaware primary voters reaffirmed that the LGBTQ+ community has a seat at the table, transgender people belong at every level of government, and that our hope for a better tomorrow can be a reality.”

John Wagner contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

The father of an 11-year-old boy who died last year delivered an emotional speech ahead of the presidential debate Tuesday, rebuking Donald Trump, JD Vance and others for mischaracterizing the circumstances around his son’s death.

“Using Aiden as a political tool is, to say the least, reprehensible for any political purpose,” Nathan Clark said Tuesday evening, with his wife at his side, during a public meeting in Springfield, Ohio. “And speaking of morally bankrupt politicians, Bernie Moreno, Chip Roy, JD Vance and Donald Trump. They have spoken my son’s name and use his death for political gain. This needs to stop now.”

Aiden Clark was killed on Aug. 22, 2023, after the school bus he was on was hit by a vehicle driven by Hermanio Joseph. The driver, a 36-year-old immigrant from Haiti, did not have a valid driver’s license at the time of the crash and in May was sentenced to a prison term of nine to 13½ years, the Springfield News-Sun reported.

Clark’s death has been amplified by Trump, Vance and other Republicans who have to sought to attack Vice President Kamala Harris on immigration and attempted to portray Americans as less safe because of undocumented immigrants who have entered the United States since President Joe Biden and Harris took office.

“REMEMBER: 11-year-old Aiden Clark was killed on his way to school by a Haitian migrant that Kamala Harris let into the country in Springfield, Ohio,” Trump’s official campaign account wrote on Monday to their more than 3 million followers on X and TruthSocial. “Kamala Harris has refused to say Aiden’s name.”

Vance went further, writing Tuesday morning on X: “Do you know what’s confirmed? That a child was murdered by a Haitian migrant who had no right to be here.”

In the public meeting later that evening, Clark noted that he “will listen to them one more time to hear their apologies” but denounced hateful rhetoric toward Haitian immigrants that has amplified since his son’s death.

“To clear the air, my son, Aiden Clark, was not murdered,” Clark said. “He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti. This tragedy is felt all over this community, the state and even the nation. But don’t spin this towards hate.”

Spokespeople for Trump and Vance did not directly address Clark’s demand for an apology, nor back away from their prior statements.

“We hope the media will continue to cover the stories of the very real suffering and tragedies experienced by the people of Springfield, Ohio — many which haven’t been given nearly the level of attention they deserve until now because they don’t fit the liberal mainstream media narrative,” Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, said.

Luke Schroeder, a spokesman for Vance, also said in a statement that “Kamala Harris should apologize to the angel mothers who testified before Congress yesterday,” and added “Will she apologize to Tammy Nobles, Alexis Nungaray, or Anne Fundner? They hold her and her open borders policies accountable for the deaths of their children. The Clark family is in Senator Vance’s prayers.”

Reagan McCarthy, a Moreno campaign spokeswoman, argued that Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Harris “are the ones who should be apologizing.”

“The reckless open border policies of Sherrod Brown and Kamala Harris are causing death and destruction across our entire nation,” McCarthy added. “The Clark family will always be in Bernie’s prayers.”

A spokesperson for Roy did not immediately provide a comment.

Trump and Vance have also spread baseless conspiracy theories about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, killing and eating pets in the area — a claim that has been unsubstantiated by the local police and officials. Trump repeated the claim during Tuesday night’s debate with Harris, even after a debate moderator said no credible evidence of the claim has surfaced.

“I’ve seen people on television … the people on television claimed, ‘My dog was taken and used for food,’” Trump said.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

It’s been one of the less remarked-upon moments from Tuesday’s jam-packed debate between former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. But one of the most subtly remarkable exchanges came when the topic turned to the war in Ukraine.

Trump was twice asked to say whether he wanted Ukraine to win the war, and he punted both times — declining to take the side of a U.S. ally against an invading foe, Russia.

That answer is far out of step with the American people and epitomizes a Trump who, as my colleague Philip Bump notes, doesn’t seem to know how to speak, or care to speak, to people outside the right-wing media bubble.

But more than that, it’s just politically puzzling.

To recap, ABC News’s David Muir twice asked Trump whether he wanted Ukraine to win, and Trump talked around it both times.

“I want the war to stop,” Trump deflected the first time. “I want to save lives that are being uselessly — people being killed by the millions.” (Actual estimates place the war dead significantly lower than Trump’s number.)

When pressed again, Trump deflected again.

“I think it’s the U.S.’s best interest to get this war finished and just get it done,” Trump said. He said the United States should “negotiate a deal, because we have to stop all of these human lives from being destroyed.”

This isn’t entirely new territory for Trump. He offered a similarly noncommittal response last year when asked the same question at a CNN town hall. (When it comes to the war, Trump said that he doesn’t “think in terms of winning and losing.”)

But that was during a Republican presidential primary process in which, it could be argued, supporting Ukraine too openly could have been a liability. Many Republicans — and the most vocal ones — have been staunchly against sending more aid to Ukraine.

When it comes to general-election voters, though, it’s not really even a close call.

An Economist/YouGov poll last month showed that 63 percent of Americans said they sympathized with Ukraine over Russia, while just 3 percent sympathized more with Russia. That’s a 21-to-1 margin.

Another YouGov poll this year asked directly “who do you want to win.” Americans chose Ukraine over Russia, 72-4 — an 18-to-1 margin.

Trump’s comment may align with a significant chunk of Republicans. The former poll showed 37 percent of Republicans said they sympathized more with “neither” side. The latter showed a quarter of Republicans didn’t say they preferred a Ukraine victory (many said they “didn’t know”).

But these are still losing positions even within the GOP. Lots of Republican base voters are skeptical of funding Ukraine’s defense; that doesn’t mean they don’t want Ukraine to win. And indeed, other polling has shown large majorities of Republicans are quite concerned about the threat Russia poses.

To that point, something else about that more recent poll jumped out at me last month. It showed voters didn’t just perceive Trump as being indifferent to Ukraine’s fate; they actually believed he favors Russia, on balance.

In addition to asking people where their own sympathies lie, it asked about where they thought Trump’s, Harris’s and President Joe Biden’s are found.

Americans overwhelmingly said that Harris and Biden favored Ukraine, but nearly twice as many said Trump favored Russia (37 percent) as said he favored Ukraine (21 percent).

We can certainly talk about the reasons Trump won’t say he wants Ukraine to win. He’s long crafted a cozier relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin than many aides and foreign policy experts are comfortable with, and his administration’s steps to get tough with Russia often seemed to come despite Trump. Trump could harbor hard feelings about Ukraine’s role in his first impeachment and the Russia investigation. And if we’re being charitable, perhaps Trump believes that picking sides would make brokering a peace deal more difficult.

But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that, for whatever reason, a former U.S. president is declining to take the side of a U.S. ally that was invaded by an increasingly antagonistic foe — a foe that an indictment just last week said is continuing to interfere in American elections. And he’s doing so even as this isn’t a close call for the American public.

Trump did plenty to marginalize himself at the debate, and this certainly contributed to that.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

Some allies of former president Donald Trump conceded privately Wednesday that he performed poorly in Tuesday’s debate and were deliberating over whether a rematch would help or hurt, even as Vice President Kamala Harris’s aides were pushing for a second faceoff as another opportunity for her to get out her message in a shortened campaign.

The Harris team believes a second debate could give her another valuable platform to reach voters who are unlikely to attend her rallies or be swayed by her television ads, according to people familiar with its thinking, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy. The Harris campaign had been planning for weeks to press for a second debate, the people said, but ultimately concluded it would be best to wait until the first debate was over before pushing for another.

Republicans, meanwhile, were contending Wednesday with a sense that the night did not go well for Trump, even as he insisted publicly that it had been a triumph.

One Trump adviser said the campaign wants a rematch. But another person close to the campaign, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said they hoped Trump would not agree to a second debate unless it was hosted by Fox News, reflecting Republican complaints that ABC News had been unfair to their nominee by fact-checking his assertions on several occasions. Still, this person predicted that Trump would accept another debate in the end.

The maneuvering highlighted the ongoing reverberations from Tuesday’s event, which jolted an already turbulent presidential race. While aides to both candidates said they did not think it had fundamentally changed the dynamics of the contest, each was looking for ways to seize momentum with just weeks remaining in a campaign that is essentially tied.

Some Harris advisers have long been concerned that she faced an uphill challenge of reaching critical voters given the historically brief campaign. “We want as many opportunities to talk about her as we can, given that a lot of our voters are still just learning about her and we have the most truncated election calendar in history,” said one person involved in the process, granted anonymity to describe internal deliberations.

Inside Trump’s campaign, the former president’s associates were working to shape an argument that he had won. They sought to focus on Harris’s sometimes vague answers in the debate — particularly on the rocky U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 — and less about his sometimes angry demeanor.

“It’s a little bit surprising that instead of talking about her vision and record for America, she attacked Donald Trump,” said Michael Whatley, chairman of the Republican National Committee. “Absolutely, they want to make it about Trump. They don’t want to make it about her failed record.”

In a sign of how the candidates were processing the aftermath of the debate, Harris largely stayed quiet as she marked the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, while Trump —who also attended 9/11 memorial observances — aired his grievances about the moderators and suggested Harris wanted a do-over only because she had performed so poorly.

“In the World of Boxing or [Ultimate Fighting], when a Fighter gets beaten or knocked out, they get up and scream, ‘I DEMAND A REMATCH, I DEMAND A REMATCH!’” Trump wrote Wednesday afternoon on his Truth Social platform. “Well, it’s no different with a Debate. She was beaten badly last night. Every Poll has us WINNING, in one case, 92-8, so why would I do a Rematch?”

But polls largely show Trump lost the debate. Harris’s aides spent Wednesday celebrating what they viewed as her takedown of the former president onstage — as well as the endorsement of pop star Taylor Swift that came immediately afterward — although some conceded that she had more work to do in the days ahead to make an affirmative case for her candidacy.

While some of Harris’s lines goading Trump on Tuesday night were rehearsed, she improvised several key moments, according to one campaign official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential matters. Harris’s skeptical expressions, questioning stares, dismissive laughs and spontaneous interjections drew on her record as a prosecutor and a senator accustomed to high-profile interrogations, the official said.

Trump showed up in the spin room after the debate, which he did not do following his successful debate against President Joe Biden in Atlanta. A person who was in the room with Trump campaign aides Tuesday said the “vibes were night-and-day different from Atlanta,” describing the mood as “subdued and quiet.”

As Trump entered the spin room afterward, Sen. Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.), a close friend of Harris’s, laughed. Asked why he would feel the need to show up instead of letting surrogates speak for him, Butler said, “That’s what losers do.”

The Trump campaign argued that Harris had been woefully short on policy specifics. It also sent out talking points to allies after Tuesday’s debate, including a section titled, “Kamala’s Lies and Platitudes vs. President Trump’s Plan of Action.”

The fiery night left both campaigns plotting the path forward in a complex and increasingly heated contest. Most voters have long since made up their minds about Trump, while polls suggest many Americans do not have a clear idea of what Harris stands for. That is factoring in to both candidates’ deliberations over a second showdown.

Alex Conant, a GOP strategist, said that Tuesday’s debate was “at best a missed opportunity, potentially much worse” for Trump, pointing specifically to the former president’s false claim that migrants were eating people’s dogs and cats in small-town America. “If he loses the election, people can point to the debate as the key reason why,” Conant said. “He should definitely want to do a second debate. I don’t think he wants the last image in the minds of voters to be him spouting conspiracy theories about pets.”

More than 67 million people watched Tuesday’s debate, according to figures released Wednesday by Nielsen.

After the debate, spokesman Brian Hughes said that Trump was interested in debating again and was open to a rematch hosted by NBC later this month. But by Wednesday morning, Trump was signaling he was against it.

“When you win the debate, I don’t know that I want to do another debate,” Trump told “Fox & Friends.”

Hours later, during an appearance in Shanksville, Pa., Trump expressed openness to a rematch, including on NBC or Fox. Several networks have proposed dates for future debates, giving the candidates multiple options.

Harris’s aides were cheered that she avoided the kind of garbled and wordy responses that had vexed her in previous unscripted settings. Advisers said that reflected her growing confidence as the Democratic party has rallied around her. Still, they cautioned that she remains the “underdog” in the race and predicted that the election will come down to the wire.

Harris’s team has resisted earlier proposals by Trump’s team that a second debate be held on Sept. 25. The Democrats prefer a later date in October, hoping that would make it easier for Harris to use another strong performance to propel her toward Election Day.

The Harris campaign has been in talks with both CNN and NBC about possible dates, though the door has not closed on other networks, said a person familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy.

Harris’s aides believe that she urgently needs to introduce herself more fully to the public, a sentiment that explains some of her campaign’s nontraditional moves in recent weeks, including a decision to buy ads on taxis in Philadelphia and to pay for a drone light show over the Schuylkill River.

Some of her aides have also begun to discuss the possibility of buying a large prime time bloc on major networks in key states before the election, a tactic employed by Barack Obama in the final weeks of the 2008 campaign, according to two officials familiar with the discussions.

Despite Trump’s insistence that he had won Tuesday night, an instant CNN poll showed Harris winning the debate 63 percent to 37 percent among debate-watchers, while a YouGov poll showed her winning 54-31 among registered voters who watched at least some of the debate.

Privately, people close to Trump conceded that his performance left something to be desired, especially when he was distracted by such issues as the crowd sizes at his rallies. “But he’s going to be himself,” said one of those people, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer a frank assessment.

Any discussion of future debates will trigger new negotiations over the rules.

The Harris campaign began preparing for Tuesday’s event with the hope that the candidates would directly engage each other, with their microphones on throughout the event. Harris was preparing for those exchanges until it became clear that Trump would not move away from the terms established by the Biden campaign, providing for the mics to be turned off when it was not a candidate’s allotted time to speak.

Harris then shifted her preparation to focus on two-minute answers containing what one person involved called “Easter eggs” designed to rattle Trump. The strategy paid off when Trump became agitated as Harris needled him over such matters as the inheritance he received from his father, the ostensible “exhaustion and boredom” of his rally attendees and his legal problems.

Maeve Reston contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

The federal government will dramatically increase security protections for the joint session of Congress where lawmakers count states’ electoral votes, an escalation of government-wide efforts to prevent a repeat of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the Secret Service said Wednesday in a statement provided to The Washington Post.

The Department of Homeland Security has designated the next electoral count — scheduled for Jan. 6, 2025 — a National Special Security Event, giving the once-routine post-election gathering the same level of security accorded to presidential inaugurations and political conventions, the Secret Service, which will take over security for the count, confirmed.

“National Special Security Events are events of the highest national significance,” Eric Ranaghan, the special agent in charge of the U.S. Secret Service’s Dignitary Protective Division, said in the statement. “The U.S. Secret Service, in collaboration with our federal, state, and local partners are committed to developing and implementing a comprehensive and integrated security plan to ensure the safety and security of this event and its participants.”

The designation, which followed a request from D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser and a recommendation by the House select committee charged with investigating Jan. 6, is intended to unlock funds and law enforcement resources from across the federal government to protect members of Congress while they certify the election results — the very job lawmakers were doing when a mob of Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol.

But Congress, which is in the midst of a fierce battle over government funding, must act to ensure the Secret Service has enough money to secure National Special Security Events and protect Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, for the remainder of the election, the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a request sent to lawmakers in recent weeks.

The DHS decision is only the latest step in an effort by people inside and outside of government to prevent a repeat of the chaos triggered by Trump’s lies about the 2020 election.

Across Washington and the country, lawmakers, aides, lawyers, activists, political strategists and law enforcement officers who aim to protect the peaceful transition of power next January have spent much of the past few years thinking through and preparing for a dizzying array of nightmare post-election scenarios.

Their fears, which they have laid out in tabletop exercises, legal briefs, internal conversations and secretive law enforcement plans, are myriad and specific. Some worry that members of the House of Representatives could struggle for weeks to elect a speaker, making certification of the election results impossible. Others are concerned that a handful of lawmakers could delay the seating of members-elect, leaving the people elected by voters to represent their district hamstrung, without any authority or ability to conduct essential business.

The people gaming out these potential scenarios acknowledge that they can’t possibly anticipate every possible threat to the peaceful transfer of power. The fact that Trump declined during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris to express a single regret about his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, and has continued to stoke baseless claims of election fraud, makes the period after November’s election even harder to predict.

But the people gaming out the 2024 post-election landscape are determined to avoid the pitfalls they experienced the last time around.

“Last time we were steeped in potential parliamentary maneuvers around the rejection of the electoral college votes and the attempt to trigger a contingent election in the House, so we were ready for those parliamentary maneuvers, but we were not ready to talk about what would happen if protests outside turned violent and then entered the Capitol and overran the chambers,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), ranking Democrat of the House Oversight Committee who also sat on the select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.

“So we are now trying to prepare for every conceivable contingency we can think of,” Raskin added.

A team under Rep. Joseph Morelle (N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on House Administration, is handling the research and analysis behind the “list of horribles,” as one person involved with the effort called the scenarios that could derail the electoral certification.

Off the Hill, a small working group within Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to identifying and fighting threats to American democracy, has been facilitating tabletop exercises to game out what might happen — and how they’d advise members who support a peaceful transition to respond.

A broader group of people with congressional, political and legal expertise initially gathered for one big meeting that dispersed into breakout sessions, where they ran through all of the “twists and turns” of different scenarios, according to one participant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential planning. Following that meeting, a smaller group of congressional and parliamentary experts have met on a monthly basis on Zoom to drill into the details of various post-election scenarios.

The meetings and group sessions are confidential, but Ian Bassin, the co-founder and executive director of Protect Democracy, acknowledged the work of the group in a statement to The Post.

“The last time Congress met to count presidential electoral votes, Donald Trump incited an insurrection on the Capitol after which 147 Members of Congress voted to thwart the will of the voters,” Bassin wrote in an email. “The law has been updated since then to prevent something like that from happening again and its entirely normal when a new law is passed for members and civil society groups alike to get educated on how the new law works and be ready to ensure the law is followed even if — especially if — attempts to corrupt the process like we saw in the past are tried again.”

And at the Capitol Police’s D Street headquarters, Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, who took over the force six months after the riot, is already thinking through security ahead of next January and coordinating with the D.C. National Guard to figure out how to respond to any threat.

Members of Congress are not yet fully engaged with planning, as research and prep is ongoing, but both Morelle’s team and Protect Democracy plan to circulate their findings to members later this year.

The Capitol Police now have 2,200 sworn officers, about 250 more than four years ago, Manger said, and plans are in place to mobilize thousands of officers from the region and elsewhere to help if needed.

“We are better equipped, better trained and have a better operational plan than we did on Jan. 6,” Manger said, referring to 2021. Unlike four years ago, when debate raged over bureaucratic delays in mobilizing the National Guard, Manger now has the authority to make the request himself without going through a more cumbersome process that was previously in place.

After the election, Manger said, “we’ll get a clearer picture of what we might expect” on Jan. 6 and at the inauguration. “Depending on what we hear, and what happens, we’ll plan accordingly.”

That could include unscalable fencing going around the Capitol, call-up of the D.C. National Guard and additional officers deputized to work in D.C. Earlier this summer, more than 200 police officers from New York City helped Capitol Police bolster security for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of Congress. Some demonstrators confronted police, and Manger said threats included one of Netanyahu’s life.

Manger said he has made intelligence a priority, as threats to members of Congress rise at an alarming rate. An agency that fielded fewer than 4,000 threats in 2017 saw that number grow to more than 8,600 in 2020 and to 9,600 in 2023. Those include direct threats and “concerning statements.” Manger said Capitol Police “are a player and an active member of the intelligence community in a way we were not on Jan. 6,” referring to 2001.

In addition to securing the sprawling Capitol grounds, Capitol Police are responsible for protecting members of Congress.

Manger would not say if more members are asking for personal protective details. Members of leadership get details; he said details are assigned to others based on threat levels and would last as long as the threat remains a concern. Manger said about 300 Capitol Police officers were in Milwaukee for the Republican National Convention, and a similar number were present in Chicago for the Democratic convention.

Intelligence officers are “hearing the same chatter that every other person in the intelligence community is picking up,” said Manger. “Extremists on the right and the left talking about threats, talking about civil war, about how they’re going to react if things don’t go the way they wanted it to go.”

“We’d be foolish to ignore that and say it could never happen,” he added.

Jacob Bogage contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com