Posts tagged with "The Hill"

Trump campaign struggles to contain Puerto Rico October surprise

October 29, 2024

The Trump campaign is struggling to contain an October surprise of its own making, just one week from Election Day, reports The Hill.

A racist remark by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe—one of many warm-up speakers for former President Donald Trump at a rally held on Sunday, October 27 at New York City’s Madison Square Garden—is reverberating hard.

Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats are working to make sure the gibe reaches the ears of as many Latino voters as possible—especially in the swing states that will decide the election.

Republicans, including Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance (Ohio), are trying to minimize the damage—either by distancing themselves from what Hinchcliffe said or by suggesting that a remark made in jest should not spark such outrage.

At the rally, Hinchcliffe referred to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage.” He also used other racist tropes, including a reference to Black people and watermelons, and a crude reference linking procreation and immigration.

The comments were slammed as offensive in their own right. But they could also have serious electoral repercussions.

The state is essentially deadlocked, with Trump leading Harris by just four-tenths of a percentage point in the polling average maintained by The Hill/Decision Desk HQ.

There are also tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans in other swing states, including Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina.

Democratic operative Chuck Rocha, an expert on the Latino vote, told this column that he and a super PAC he advises, Nuestro PAC, had sent clips of Hinchcliffe’s remarks “to every Puerto Rican voter in Pennsylvania” on Monday, October 28.

Referring to the uproar and its effect on Trump’s campaign, Rocha added, “It’s an unforced error from a campaign that has no strategic vision. Puerto Rican voters are very sensitive about their island and how you talk about their island—whether they, themselves, live on that island or in Allentown.”

Allentown, about 50 miles north of Philadelphia, is described by The Philadelphia Inquirer as “a majority Latino city and home to 34,000 Puerto Ricans — the eighth-largest Puerto Rican community in America.”

Harris has been turning the screws on Trump over the remark. The vice president on Monday cited Trump’s New York event as having “highlighted a point that I’ve been making throughout this campaign. … He is focused and actually fixated on his grievances, on himself and on dividing our country.”

Her campaign also launched a digital ad aimed at Latino voters that began with Hinchcliffe’s words and asserted that “Puerto Ricans deserve better.”

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), who is of Puerto Rican descent, described the Madison Square Garden rally as a “hate rally” during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday morning.

On social media, Ocasio-Cortez hit back at Hinchcliffe’s defense that “these people have no sense of humor” and that his joke had been “taken out of context to make it seem racist.”

The New York congresswoman accused the comic of “feeding red-meat racism alongside a throng of other bigots to a frothing crowd.”

The reaction from the Trump campaign—and from the GOP, more broadly—suggests they are well aware of the potential damage from the furor. Trump campaign Senior Adviser Danielle Alvarez told media outlets that the comic’s comments did not “reflect the views” of the former president or his campaign.

Research contact: @thehill

Supreme Court won’t hear arguments in Texas emergency abortion case

October 7, 2024

The Supreme Court has decided not to hear arguments in a case involving Texas that could have provided an answer about whether a state abortion ban conflicts with a federal emergency care law, reports The Hill.

The decision is a significant victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and comes just three months after the court dismissed a similar case involving Idaho—a move that was criticized as a preelection punt that offered no clarity on the issue.

Dismissing the Idaho case did not resolve the underlying legal questions, so the decision not to hear arguments in the Texas case was unexpected.

The dismissal came under fire not just from abortion-rights activists and physicians but also Justices Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Both argued, for different reasons, that the court should have ruled on the merits.

The Texas case centers on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients no matter their ability to pay.

The Biden Administration invoked EMTALA in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. The administration said state laws or mandates that employ a more restrictive definition of an emergency medical condition are preempted by the federal statute.

Texas sued the administration shortly after the guidance was issued—arguing the law was improperly applied, and the administration did not follow the appropriate rulemaking process.

The court said the administration’s guidance was improperly issued. The panel held that EMTALA does not require any particular care and never requires pregnancy termination. The court, considered the most conservative in the country, ruled EMTALA does not govern the practice of medicine.

Further, the court said there is no direct conflict between EMTALA and the Texas abortion law. Texas bans abortions in almost all circumstances, but there are exceptions for when there is a life-threatening condition that places the mother at risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

In asking the Supreme Court not to hear arguments, Texas insisted the case was merely about how the administration issued the EMTALA guidance, rather than the substance of the law itself.

In the earlier case, the Biden Administration sued Idaho over its abortion ban, arguing it conflicted with EMTALA. But in this case, Texas sued the Department of Health and Human Services.

“This is not the case the federal government says it is,” the state said in its brief. “The United States has erased two years of litigation history and transformed this case from one about whether the executive branch complied with administrative-law requirements to one about whether the State of Texas has complied with constitutional demands.”

Research contact: @thehill

Hillary Clinton warns of October surprise that will ‘distort and pervert’ Harris’s campaign

September 30, 2024

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned of an October surprise that will “distort and pervert” the presidential campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris, reports The Hill.

“There will be concerted efforts to distort and pervert Kamala Harris, who she is, what she stands for, what she’s done,” Clinton said during an interview with “Firing Line” host Margaret Hoover.

She pointed to the 2016 “pizzagate” conspiracy theory that surrounded the end of her presidential campaign against Donald Trump: “I mean, look, I mean, the crazy story about me running a child trafficking operation out of a basement of a pizzeria,” Clinton said.

The comment evoked laughter from the crowd. “Pizzagate,” as the child sex trafficking conspiracy became known, resulted in a North Carolina man opening fire on a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor in 2016.

“Don’t laugh,” Clinton told the crowd. “It was a huge story. And it got one young man in North Carolina to get in his car with his, you know, assault rifle and drove up to liberate these nonexistent children and shoot up a pizzeria in Washington, D.C.”

She warned that ahead of this year’s election, “the digital airwaves” will be filled with misinformation that can take on a life of its own.

Clinton argued that the press needs a “consistent narrative” about the danger that Trump poses to the country in the coming weeks. She warned that foreign actors like Russia, Iran and China may fuel disinformation on social media, seeking to influence the election.

She said she believes a story about Harris is coming. “So, I don’t know what it’s going to be,” she said of the October surprise. “But it will be something, and we’ll have to work very, very hard to make sure that it is exposed as the lie that it is.”

Research contact: @thehill

Five takeaways from Harris’s MSNBC interview

September 26, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris sat down with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle on Wednesday, September 25—fielding questions on her economic agenda, former President Donald Trump’s economic plans, and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D), reports The Hill

.The MSNBC interview was a friendly forum for the vice president, who has been under pressure to ramp up her media presence. Harris sat down with Ruhle in Pittsburgh, following an economic-focused speech in which she laid out a framework for her manufacturing agenda.

Here are five takeaways from Harris’s interview on MSNBC:

Harris lays out pricey agenda

Much of the interview was spent talking about the economy and involved Harris outlining her agenda. Her “opportunity economy” involves a housing plan to help first-time homebuyers, a child tax plan that involves expanding credits to families, and a plan to boost small businesseswith tax deductions for entrepreneurs, among other proposals.

“If you are hardworking, if you have the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations I believe you do, you’re in my plan,” she said.

When it comes to how to pay for some programs, Harris reiterated that she would not raise taxes on Americans making less than $400,000—maintaining a pillar of President Joe Biden’s  tax plan—but that corporations should pay their “fair share” in taxes.

Much of Harris’s economic agenda would need congressional approval, particularly when it comes to tax policy. That would make it an uphill battle, should Congress see a Republican majority; but also if either or both chambers are closely split between parties.

Ruhle questioned the vice president on polling that shows likely voters think Trump is better on the economy. Harris recently closed the gap with Trump on the economy in one survey — an Associated Press/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll that found Harris and Trump with equal support on the issue.

“Donald Trump left us with the worst economy since the Great Depression,” Harris said, citing data that about 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost during the Trump years.

Walz pick was gut decision

Toward the end of the interview, Ruhle asked Harris when was the last time she made a “gut decision,” given that decisions made by presidents take “extraordinary instinct and guts.”

“When’s the last time you had to make a gut decision? This here is very prescribed. It’s very controlled,” Ruhle asked, referring to the interview setup.

“The biggest gut decision I made most recently was to choose my running mate,” Harris responded, referring to her decision to pick Walz to run as her vice president. “There were lots of good, incredible candidates, and ultimately that came down to a gut decision.”

Harris picked Walz in August, just more than a month after she announced her presidential bid. The governor emerged as a dark horse contender for the slot just before Harris made her choice, being selected over other more high-profile names Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (D) and Arizona Senator Mark Kelly (D) ,who were largely viewed for weeks as the favorites for the position.

Harris knocks Trump on tariffs

Harris bashed Trump for his suggestion to place tariffs on foreign companies, which he has laid out repeatedly on the campaign trail.

“Part of it is, you don’t just throw around the idea of just tariffs across the board, and that’s part of the problem with Donald Trump,” Harris said when Ruhle asked about the former president’s plans to expand tariffs.

“He’s just not very serious about how he thinks about some of these issues,” Harris added. “One must be serious and have a real plan that’s not just about some talking point ending in an exclamation at a political rally.”

Trump gave an economic-focused speech this week in Pennsylvania, during which he spoke about his plan to use tariffs, continuing to expand on his claims that he wants to expand the use of tariffs if he’s elected.

He also threatened Illinois-based John Deerewith massive tariffs on its products if it outsources some of its manufacturing to Mexico, as it has previously announced.

Harris defends opposition to U.S. Steel sale

Harris defended her opposition to Japanese steelmaker Nippon Steel acquiring U.S. Steel, after Ruhle mentioned the potential consequences of blocking it.

U.S. Steel warned earlier this month that it may cut staff and move its headquarters from Pittsburgh, if the company’s planned sale falls apart. Nippon Steel announced it would acquire U.S. Steel in December—prompting outcry from lawmakers, including Biden and Trump, who argued the deal could undermine national security and industrial capacity.

“It’s most important that we maintain America’s ability to have American manufacturing [of] steel by American workers for a number of reasons,” Harris said, defending the opposition.

“There is not a new industry that I can imagine that is not going to require steel,” she added, noting, “And having American workers in an American company manufacturing that steel for those industries is going to be critically important.”

Ruhle interview is Harris’s deepest on policy

Harris’s interview with Ruhle went deeper into her proposed economic policies than any of the other media appearances and interviews she’s done to date as the Democratic nominee.

Ruhle questioned Harris, for example, on how she planned to pay for such proposals and how the federal government would cut through red tape to reach municipalities on matters such as the shortage of housing.

The vice president outlined incentives the federal government can create for communities to build more homes and provide transit. Harris maintains that such proposals could be paid for with an increase in corporate taxes but has not gotten into details about how such hikes could get through Congress.

“I know that we have to reduce the red tape and speed up what we need to do around building, and that is going to require working from the federal level with state and local governments,” she said.

Research contact: @thehill

House GOP torpedoes Speaker Mike Johnson’s funding bill

Sepember 19, 2024

A diverse group of House Republicans torpedoed Speaker Mike Johnson’s proposal to fund the government on Wednesday, September 18—dealing an embarrassing blow to the GOP leader and derailing his strategy to avoid a shutdown at the end of the month, reports The Hill.

Fourteen Republicans joined virtually every Democrat in voting against the spending plan — which paired a six-month stopgap bill with a measure that would require proof of citizenship to vote — bringing the final tally to 202-220, with two voting present. Three Democrats crossed the aisle to back the measure.

The Speaker faced a troika of GOP opposition, with hardline conservatives criticizing the use of a continuing resolution; defense hawks voicing concern about the impact the long-term funding bill would have at the Pentagon; and moderates expressing worries about having a shutdown threat so close to the election.

“I look at the spending, and I think that’s one of the largest issues that we have in our country, is $36 trillion in debt, and I look at a bill that’s continuing the excessive spending,” said Representative Beth Van Duyne (Texas), one of the GOP opponents.

The result was not a surprise: Johnson yanked a planned vote on the measure last week over widespread opposition, and a majority of those critics reiterated their resistance this week.

The vote outcome, nonetheless, is putting the Speaker in a bind. It leaves the path to averting a shutdown unclear, puts him in danger of disappointing former President Donald Trump and his conference’s right flank, and threatens to thwart his efforts to remain GOP leader in the next Congress.

Johnson, to be sure, was going to need a plan B to avert a shutdown even if the bill passed the House, since it has no chance of progressing in the Senate, where Democrats voiced opposition to the six-month timeline and the inclusion of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which Trump is demanding be included.

Democrats have noted it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote, and they have expressed concerns about placing extra burdens on eligible voters. However, Johnson, pushed ahead with the plan—which would extend funding through March 28—in an attempt to gain leverage over Senate Democrats in forthcoming negotiations.

The Speaker had remained defiant amid the growing pressure—insisting on holding a vote on the legislation despite the mounting opposition and brushing aside any notion of a plan B.

“We’re on the field in the middle of the game. The quarterback is calling the play, we’re going to run the play,” Johnson said Wednesday. “We do the right thing day by day, and we have a big playbook, of course, with all sorts of ideas in it. But when you’re on the field and you’re calling a play, you run the play.”

On Tuesday, the Speaker told reporters, “I’m not having any alternative conversations.”

But with Wednesday’s failed vote officially in the rearview mirror—and the September 30 shutdown deadline inching closer—Johnson is being forced to regroup. The way forward, though, remains unknown.

Research contact: @thehill

Poll: Harris holds 67-point lead over Trump among LGBTQ voters

September 17, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris leads former President Donald Trump among LGBTQ voters by a wide margin, with more than 70% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer voters indicating they will cast a ballot for the Democratic ticket, reports The Hill.

Harris holds a nearly 67-point lead over Trump, according to the survey from the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organization; and an almost 70-point lead when the results are restricted to those who plan to vote.

Data collection began two weeks after President Joe Biden abandoned his reelection campaign and endorsed Harris—and just days after Harris selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, a longtime LGBTQ rights advocate, as her running mate.

Survey responses were recorded about a week before independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump.

About 8% of respondents who intend to vote in this year’s presidential election said they would vote for Trump and his running mate, Ohio Senator  JD Vance, compared with 77% who said they would vote for Harris and Walz. The remaining share of LGBTQ adults said they planned to back a third-party candidate in November, or did not plan on voting.

The poll reflects the attitudes of roughly 2,500 LGBTQ voters nationwide. A staggering 95% of LGBTQ adults surveyed said they are registered to vote in this year’s elections, far higher than the general population and consistent with findings from prior surveys that LGBTQ Americans tend to be more politically active.

More than 93% of LGBTQ Americans in Tuesday’s survey said they are motivated to vote in November—including 73% who said they are “very” motivated to vote.

Roughly 60% of Generation Z LGBTQ adults said they are motivated to cast a ballot; along with 72% of Millennials and 91% of Generation X respondents.

Advancing LGBTQ equality and combating anti-LGBTQ laws ranked highest on LGBTQ voters’ priorities, according to the poll; with close to 52% of respondents listing it as their top voting issue.

Abortion and reproductive rights ranked second, at 47%, and roughly 33% of LGBTQ voters said judicial reform was among their top priorities. Thirty-one percent said inflation was a critical concern and 27 percent said Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for the next conservative administration, was a key motivator driving them to the polls.

Research contact: @thehill

Suspect in apparent Trump assassination attempt charged with federal gun crimes

September 16, 2024

The suspected gunman in an attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump has been charged with federal gun crimes, reports The Hill.

Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, appeared in federal court in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Monday, shackled and in a blue jumpsuit. He is accused of possessing a firearm despite being a convicted felon and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, the AP initially reported.

According to a report by NBC News, Routh, appearing in shackles and dark blue jail attire before magistrate Judge Ryon McCabe, seemed unbothered and nonchalant as he sat with a public defender.

He allegedly pushed the muzzle of a rifle through the perimeter of the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach while the former president was playing early during the afternoon of Sunday, September 15—prompting a Secret Service agent to fire.

The incident, which the FBI is investigating as an apparent assassination attempt, marked the second attempt on Trump’s life this year. Additional and more serious charges against Routh are possible as investigators continue to examine the incident.

Research contact: @thehill

Chutkan in charge: Judge ignites flurry of activity in Trump January 6 case

August 8, 2024

The return of former President Donald Trump’s January 6 prosecution to District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has ignited a flurry of activity in the once-dormant case—reviving a high-stakes court battle after a series of legal wins for the former president, reports The Hill.

The case is back in Chutkan’s hands after the Supreme Court formally sent it back to the lower courts after providing Trump a victory in determining that, as a former president, he maintains broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

That ended a roughly eight-month pause in the case and Chutkan has made clear the hiatus is over. Just hours after the case was handed back over on Friday, she scheduled an August 16 conference to chart the course for handling numerous unresolved issues in the case—likely teeing off a discussion over whether to hold what some have deemed a minitrial.

And on Saturday, August 3, she ruled against Trump on a pending bid to toss the case, determining he failed to demonstrate any prosecutorial bias on the part of special counsel Jack Smith in bringing the case.

“She certainly has signaled with her rapid disposition of the selected prosecution motion, with setting a quick briefing schedule and a speedy hearing on the 16th that she wants to keep things moving, and that is how the justice system should work,” Norm Eisen, who served as counsel for Democrats in Trump’s first impeachment, told The Hill.

In her order, Chutkan wrote that Trump had again offered an “improper reframing” of the allegations against him and determined the former president offered “no meaningful evidence” that he was unfairly targeted.

Chutkan has consistently offered a contrast with Judge Aileen Cannon, who oversees Trump’s Florida-based documents case. She’s more speedily resolved a number of pending matters in the January 6 case, while Cannon’s Mar-a-Lago case has plodded along with lengthy hearings on long-shot motions from Trump.

And while Cannon agreed to toss Trump’s documents case, Chutkan rejected his effort to do so with immunity claims—teeing up the battle that has now boomeranged back to her courtroom.

In the wake of the high court’s decision, Chutkan is now tasked with determining what conduct from Trump’s effort to unwind the 2020 election is not immune from prosecution.

The public will get their first look at Smith’s thinking on the matter by August 9, when Chutkan has ordered both sides to jointly lay out their vision for how they think the case should proceed.

It’s possible Smith could ask for an evidentiary hearing—something some Trump critics see as a “minitrial” that would allow the public to learn more about the evidence prosecutors plan to offer.

“There’s no reason for further delay here. It’s already outrageous that the case has been delayed as long as it has. It was supposed to go to trial in March. We should have had a verdict long ago, so the least the judicial system can do is give us a minitrial to—to some extent—air the allegations and offer a determination of whether they’re immune or not,” Eisen said.

“I think Judge Chutkan will ultimately rule that the majority—indeed, the vast majority, of the indictmen—consists of allegations where immunity does not apply.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling last month determined former presidents are immune from prosecution for actions they take in office that are part of their core executive functions, and that they are presumptively immune for all other official acts.

In doing so, the justices called out one specific element of the indictment—barring use of Trump’s pressure campaign at the Justice Department as the basis for any charges.

But it’s now up to Chutkan to parse out the rest of the indictment and determine where else Trump might be protected from prosecution—and which elements of his plot to stay in power can still land him prison time.

Research contact: @thehill

Biden to push Supreme Court term limits, immunity constitutional amendment in Monday speech

July 30, 2024

On Monday,  July 29, President Joe Biden  will propose term limits for Supreme Court justices, as well as a Constitutional amendment to counteract their recent presidential immunity decision, reports The Hill.

Biden will endorse the proposals during an afternoon speech at the LBJ Presidential Library, where he will also voice support for a binding code of conduct for the justices.

“This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one,” Biden wrote in an op-ed published Monday morning in The Washington Post.

The announcement marks a major shift for the president, who has long resisted progressives’ calls for Supreme Court reforms over fears it would politicize the court. Conservatives have portrayed the effort as an attack to tear down the court’s 6-3 conservative majority.

Biden has increasingly taken on the court, particularly after it overturned Constitutional abortion protections and carved out criminal immunity for former presidents. Biden signaled the forthcoming announcement in his recent Oval Office speech addressing his decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential race.

“I have great respect for our institutions and separation of powers. What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach,” Biden wrote in Monday’s op-ed.

One part of Biden’s threefold proposal directly responds to the immunity decision, which handed a major win to former President Trump by dooming some elements of his criminal prosecutions.

Biden on Monday will call for a constitutional amendment that would partially overturn the landmark decision by making clear former presidents do not enjoy criminal immunity from federal criminal indictments. The “No One Is Above the Law Amendment” would not apply to state indictments, however.

“It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws—not of kings or dictators,” Biden wrote.

Biden also will demand 18-year term limits for the nine justices, which would enable the sitting president to appoint a new justice every two years.

“The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court Justices. Term limits would help ensure that the Court’s membership changes with some regularity; make timing for Court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary; and reduc[ing] the chance that any single Presidency imposes undue influence for generations to come,” reads a White House fact sheet on the proposal.

Biden will also endorse a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court, which has faced relentless public pressure on its ethics standards following reports of Justice Clarence Thomas and others accepting lavish trips and gifts from billionaires.

Research contact: @thehill

Harris skipping Netanyahu address shows daylight with Biden on Israeli leader

July 24, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris will be notably absent from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, July 24—a move some Republicans called “petty,” according to a report by The Hill.

The move could have the potential to show some daylight between her and President Joe Biden when it comes to the Israeli leader.

Harris—now rapidly consolidating support as the likely Democratic nominee after Biden dropped out of the race—has been seen as more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause compared to the commander-in-chief, who has been followed around the country by protesters demanding an end to the war.

As vice president, Harris would traditionally preside over a joint session involving a foreign leader’s address. But instead, she will be on the road in Indiana—opting not to change her preexisting plans.

The move could further solidify support from young, minority, and more progressive voters who polls shows have been more sympathetic to the cause.

For starters, Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said recently that Harris “has a deep empathy for the situation of Palestinian Americans,” adding, “It’s more natural to her.”

Yet the decision also comes with some risks, as Republicans are likely to point to Harris’s absence as an unnecessary snub of a key U.S. ally, something former President Trump’s campaign is certain to echo.

“VPOTUS Harris’s snub of Netanyahu is petty and disrespectful,” Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), said on Monday, July 22, on the social platform X.

Harris, 59, is of a different generation than Biden, the 81-year-old president whose fiercely pro-Israel stance was increasingly out of step with young Democrats.

Allies say that as a woman of Black and South Asian descent, Harris is naturally more sympathetic to Palestinians, even if she has backed Biden’s support of Israel in the war with Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist group by the United States.

“The vice president’s language from the beginning has been inclusive of both Israeli security and the plight of the Palestinians. That has been well-regarded by people on both sides of the Israel debate,” a Harris ally said.

Harris most notably had a breakout moment on the issue during a March speech in Selma, Alabama, to mark the 59th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in which she began her remarks addressing the war, where she called the situation in Gaza “devastating” and a “humanitarian catastrophe.”

Those were some of the most pointed words coming out of the Administration since the start of the war at the time. Harris received several rounds of applause during her remarks, while Biden was often met with silence or protesters when he addressed the issue.

Biden lost more than half a million voters to the “uncommitted” movement in this year’s Democratic primaries—numbers that underscored frustration within his own party over his handling of the Israel-Hamas war.

An aide to the vice president said she has had an “unwavering commitment to the security of Israel” and has been engaged with Israeli officials since the October 7 attacks, speaking “regularly” with President Isaac Herzog.

The aide noted she “repeatedly condemned Hamas’s brutal attack on October 7 and expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself,” which echoes Biden’s stance on the conflict. She is also expected to “reiterate her deep concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the loss of innocent life,” the aide said.

Harris’s meeting with Netanyahu this week could ease concerns among voters angered by Biden’s handling of the war and give her yet another boost, if progressives can see her candidacy as a fresh start on Middle East policy.

“Not being responsible for the situation in Gaza will help the vice president bring Democrats back to the fold who have been upset for the last few months about the issue,” said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons, who worked for Harris until last year.

Research contact: @thehill