Another open letter from Republicans endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential bid just dropped.

This one, first reported by the New York Times, is signed by 111 former national security and foreign policy officials who worked under former presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush—and, yes, Trump himself.

The blistering letter characterizes Trump as “unfit to serve,” alleging that he “cannot be trusted” to uphold the Constitution. The signatories include onetime Republican stalwarts such as Charles Boustany, the Louisiana congressman who gave the party’s rebuttal to former President Obama’s speech to Congress about health care reform; William Cohen, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and former senator from Maine; Gen. Michael Hayden, CIA and National Security Agency director under Obama and George W. Bush; and Miles Taylor, former chief of staff in the Department of Homeland Security under Trump.

The group writes that they “firmly oppose” Trump’s reelection, alleging that “as President, he promoted daily chaos in government, praised our enemies and undermined our allies, politicized the military and disparaged our veterans, prioritized his personal interest above American interests, and betrayed our values, democracy, and this country’s founding documents.” The letter also states that “by inciting the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and defending those who committed it, he has violated his oath of office and brought danger to our country.”

Like Harris mentioned in last week’s debate, the supporters also write that Trump is susceptible “to flattery and manipulation by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping,” and that these influences, along with his “contempt for the norms of decent, ethical and lawful behavior” and “chaotic national security decision-making,” are “dangerous qualities.”

By contrast, they write, “Vice President Harris has demonstrated a commitment to upholding the ideals that define our nation freedom, democracy, and rule of law,” citing her experience as vice president, attorney general of California, and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. (The letter also cites some of Harris’ promises that have rankled some on the left, including her pledges to “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force
in the world”; to “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself”; and to support the border security package that would hire 1,500 new Customs and Border Protection personnel.)

The group acknowledges that while they have concerns “about some of the positions advocated by the left wing of the Democratic party…any potential concerns pale in comparison to Donald Trump’s demonstrated chaotic and unethical behavior and disregard for our Republic’s time-tested principles of constitutional governance.”

Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign’s communications director, said in a statement that the signatories “are the same people who got our country into endless foreign wars and profited off of them while the American people suffered. President Trump is the only President in the modern era not to get our country into any new wars.”

As I have written, hundreds of other high-ranking onetime Republican officials—including ex-Reagan, Bush, Romney, and McCain staffers—have also publicly endorsed Harris over Trump, and urged other Republicans to follow their lead when they cast their votes. The Harris campaign has also been actively courting Republicans in what it calls “a campaign within a campaign.” This concerted effort to reach across the aisle is likely part of why a slate of new polls out today bring good news for Harris, showing her leading in the swing states of Pennsylvania and Michigan and gaining a six-point lead over Trump since the debate.

Trump, meanwhile, has continued baselessly blaming Democrats for the latest assassination attempt against him.

Another open letter from Republicans endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential bid just dropped.

This one, first reported by the New York Times, is signed by 111 former national security and foreign policy officials who worked under former presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush—and, yes, Trump himself.

The blistering letter characterizes Trump as “unfit to serve,” alleging that he “cannot be trusted” to uphold the Constitution. The signatories include onetime Republican stalwarts such as Charles Boustany, the Louisiana congressman who gave the party’s rebuttal to former President Obama’s speech to Congress about health care reform; William Cohen, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and former senator from Maine; Gen. Michael Hayden, CIA and National Security Agency director under Obama and George W. Bush; and Miles Taylor, former chief of staff in the Department of Homeland Security under Trump.

The group writes that they “firmly oppose” Trump’s reelection, alleging that “as President, he promoted daily chaos in government, praised our enemies and undermined our allies, politicized the military and disparaged our veterans, prioritized his personal interest above American interests, and betrayed our values, democracy, and this country’s founding documents.” The letter also states that “by inciting the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and defending those who committed it, he has violated his oath of office and brought danger to our country.”

Like Harris mentioned in last week’s debate, the supporters also write that Trump is susceptible “to flattery and manipulation by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping,” and that these influences, along with his “contempt for the norms of decent, ethical and lawful behavior” and “chaotic national security decision-making,” are “dangerous qualities.”

By contrast, they write, “Vice President Harris has demonstrated a commitment to upholding the ideals that define our nation freedom, democracy, and rule of law,” citing her experience as vice president, attorney general of California, and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. (The letter also cites some of Harris’ promises that have rankled some on the left, including her pledges to “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force
in the world”; to “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself”; and to support the border security package that would hire 1,500 new Customs and Border Protection personnel.)

The group acknowledges that while they have concerns “about some of the positions advocated by the left wing of the Democratic party…any potential concerns pale in comparison to Donald Trump’s demonstrated chaotic and unethical behavior and disregard for our Republic’s time-tested principles of constitutional governance.”

Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign’s communications director, said in a statement that the signatories “are the same people who got our country into endless foreign wars and profited off of them while the American people suffered. President Trump is the only President in the modern era not to get our country into any new wars.”

As I have written, hundreds of other high-ranking onetime Republican officials—including ex-Reagan, Bush, Romney, and McCain staffers—have also publicly endorsed Harris over Trump, and urged other Republicans to follow their lead when they cast their votes. The Harris campaign has also been actively courting Republicans in what it calls “a campaign within a campaign.” This concerted effort to reach across the aisle is likely part of why a slate of new polls out today bring good news for Harris, showing her leading in the swing states of Pennsylvania and Michigan and gaining a six-point lead over Trump since the debate.

Trump, meanwhile, has continued baselessly blaming Democrats for the latest assassination attempt against him.

Trump told many lies at last week’s debate against Vice President Kamala Harris. One, it seems increasingly clear, is the stumbling claim—meant to shore up his support of in vitro fertilization, or IVF—that he is “a leader on fertilization.”

On Tuesday, Senate Republicans provided even more evidence of Trump’s lie, by voting—again—to block a floor vote on a bill that would protect IVF access nationwide. Introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who said she used IVF to give birth to her two daughters, the legislation would prevent states from enacting restrictions on fertility treatments.

Trump has done far more to impede IVF access than protect it. He is, in fact, the reason it’s in the news at all: Trump appointed three of the five conservative Supreme Court justices who overruled Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, imperiling IVF access in states like Alabama. (The state’s Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos, often discarded in the IVF process, could be considered children under state law.)

Leading reproductive rights and fertility groups called on senators to support the bill, but the Republicans have made it clear they are not interested. With 60 votes needed to move forward, the “Right to IVF Act” failed to advance, with only Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) joining Democrats in their affirmative votes. This marked Republicans’ second sabotaging of the bill, which they also blocked from moving forward in June. (That same month, they also blocked a bill to protect contraception at the federal level.)

“The reality is that [Trump] is the reason that IVF is at risk in the first place,” Duckworth said on the Senate floor after the vote. “The Dobbs decision is what led us to today’s nightmare, taking the power to decide how and when to start families from us women, and handing it to politicians in statehouses across the country.”

Duckworth slams Trump on IVF, saying “he is the reason that IVF is at risk in the first place,” before imploring to her GOP colleagues: “Today's vote is your chance to put your vote where your mouth is.” pic.twitter.com/8i7fVmRaa8

— POLITICO (@politico) September 17, 2024

On a call with reporters Tuesday morning, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said if Trump was serious about protecting IVF he would have been conferring with Senate Republicans on how to move forward. “Where is he now?” she asked. “Where is he in the middle of all of this?” (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

Republicans called the measure a show vote. GOP legislators have offered counter proposals to enshrine IVF. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) in May introduced a bill that would revoke Medicaid funding from states that ban IVF—but also not require any organizations to provide IVF, and allow states to regulate “health and safety standards” around it.

Leading reproductive rights and fertility groups called that bill—only 3 pages long, to Duckworth’s sixty-four page legislation—”phony,” saying it would not go far enough in protecting fertility care from restrictive state policies, and urged senators to support Duckworth’s bill instead.

A spokesperson for Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), who was not in DC for Tuesday’s vote, accused Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) of playing “political games.” Vance and Trump “fully support guaranteed IVF access for every American family,” the spokesperson said. (Trump also claimed that, under his watch, the government or insurance companies would pay for it—which reportedly baffled even his advisers.)

On the Senate floor Tuesday, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said Cruz’s bill “does nothing to meaningfully protect IVF from the biggest threat from lawmakers and anti-abortion extremists.” She also highlighted the far more insidious threat that blocking these protections poses: It creates a potential pathway for Republicans to get closer to enshrining “fetal personhood” in the law.

As I have written, fetal personhood would ban abortion nationwide by granting full citizenship and rights to fetuses. Anti-abortion leaders have admitted that is their goal. (As Murray pointed out, Cruz signaled his support for a fetal personhood amendment to the Constitution during his 2016 campaign; Vance has also signaled his support for fetal personhood and a federal abortion ban in the past, as I have covered.)

Cruz’s bill, Murray said, “is silent on fetal personhood, which is the biggest threat to IVF,” adding that it is also “silent on whether states can demand that an embryo be treated the same as a living, breathing person, or whether parents should be allowed to have clinics dispose of unused embryos, something that is a common necessary part of the IVF process.”

“That uncertainty is at the core of the bans that Republicans have caused,” she added.

Another way of looking at it is that the uncertainty may be the point. Republicans have been desperately trying to obfuscate their true goals for a second Trump term: They explained their plans—to ban medication abortion nationwide and eliminate the Department of Education, among others—in the 900-page Project 2025 playbook, and then Trump tried to distance himself from it, despite Trump’s and Vance’s documented connections to the initiative. The GOP has tried to promote the narrative they have “softened” on abortion despite reality proving otherwise.

And today, despite Cruz trying to paint the Democrats as anti-IVF and anti-family, it was the Republican party that tanked this vote—just like it was the Republican party that killed the expanded child tax credit.

Vance may want to remember this the next time he tries to claim this country makes it too difficult to have families.

As Vice President Kamala Harris said in response to the Senate vote: “You can’t say you care about families and then not care about this.”

Donald Trump’s abortion bans jeopardized IVF access for families across America.

Today, his Republican allies in Congress once again voted against protecting IVF.

They can’t say they care about families if they don't care about this. pic.twitter.com/Hrr5cxRbcQ

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) September 18, 2024

Update, Sept. 18: This post was updated with comments from Vice President Kamala Harris.

The FBI is investigating what officials believe is another attempted assassination of former President Trump, and a “potential suspect” is in custody.

Shots were fired near Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, where the president was golfing, at about 1:30 p.m. The Trump campaign’s communications director, Steven Cheung, said in a statement Sunday afternoon that Trump “is safe following gunshots in his vicinity.”

Secret Service personnel who were walking ahead of Trump on the golf course opened fire after seeing a rifle barrel sticking out of a fence, Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw told reporters Sunday afternoon. The suspect—who Bradshaw said was 300 to 500 yards from Trump, around the length of three to four football fields—fled on foot before getting in a car, Bradshaw said. As of Sunday afternoon, it was unclear whether the suspect had fired any shots back at the Secret Service. A witness provided a photo and details of the license plate, which allowed the Martin County Sheriff’s office to identify the vehicle and detain the suspect soon after on the I-95 freeway, authorities said.

Law enforcement found an AK-47 assault rifle with a scope—a device used to improve aim—two backpacks, and a GoPro camera in the shrubbery where the victim fled from. “With a rifle and a scope like that,” Bradshaw said, the shooter was “not a long distance” from the former president.

A male is in custody, Bradshaw said. The FBI is leading the federal investigation, according to Jeffrey Veltri, special agent in charge of the Miami Field Office, who added that the public should avoid the area around the golf course and contact officials if they have information on the shooting.

The news marks a stunning development, coming just about two months after the shooting that killed a spectator and injured Trump and two others at a Pennsylvania rally. That shooting remains the subject of a federal investigation, and the Secret Service has been criticized for the massive security failures that allowed it to unfold. On Sunday, though, officials lauded their response: “The Secret Service did exactly what they should have done,” Bradshaw said. “They provided exactly what the protection should have been and their agent did a fantastic job.”

In the aftermath of the shooting, Trump seemed to be in good spirits. “Nothing will slow me down,” he wrote in a fundraising email just hours later. “I will NEVER SURRENDER!”

In a post on X, Vice President Kamala Harris said she was briefed on the incident, adding, “I am glad he is safe. Violence has no place in America.”

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

The FBI is investigating what officials believe is another attempted assassination of former President Trump, and a “potential suspect” is in custody.

Shots were fired near Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, where the president was golfing, at about 1:30 p.m. The Trump campaign’s communications director, Steven Cheung, said in a statement Sunday afternoon that Trump “is safe following gunshots in his vicinity.”

Secret Service personnel who were walking ahead of Trump on the golf course opened fire after seeing a rifle barrel sticking out of a fence, Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw told reporters Sunday afternoon. The suspect—who Bradshaw said was 300 to 500 yards from Trump, around the length of three to four football fields—fled on foot before getting in a car, Bradshaw said. As of Sunday afternoon, it was unclear whether the suspect had fired any shots back at the Secret Service. A witness provided a photo and details of the license plate, which allowed the Martin County Sheriff’s office to identify the vehicle and detain the suspect soon after on the I-95 freeway, authorities said.

Law enforcement found an AK-47 assault rifle with a scope—a device used to improve aim—two backpacks, and a GoPro camera in the shrubbery where the victim fled from. “With a rifle and a scope like that,” Bradshaw said, the shooter was “not a long distance” from the former president.

A male is in custody, Bradshaw said. The FBI is leading the federal investigation, according to Jeffrey Veltri, special agent in charge of the Miami Field Office, who added that the public should avoid the area around the golf course and contact officials if they have information on the shooting.

The news marks a stunning development, coming just about two months after the shooting that killed a spectator and injured Trump and two others at a Pennsylvania rally. That shooting remains the subject of a federal investigation, and the Secret Service has been criticized for the massive security failures that allowed it to unfold. On Sunday, though, officials lauded their response: “The Secret Service did exactly what they should have done,” Bradshaw said. “They provided exactly what the protection should have been and their agent did a fantastic job.”

In the aftermath of the shooting, Trump seemed to be in good spirits. “Nothing will slow me down,” he wrote in a fundraising email just hours later. “I will NEVER SURRENDER!”

In a post on X, Vice President Kamala Harris said she was briefed on the incident, adding, “I am glad he is safe. Violence has no place in America.”

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

JD Vance loves a Sunday morning media blitz.

In his latest round of television interviews, it appears he will not be swayed by the mounting evidence that the racist lies he amplified about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating pets—which former President Trump repeated on the debate stage this week to 67 million viewers—are demonstrably false. Instead, Trump’s historically unpopular running mate doubled down on his claims in a series of interviews on CNN, NBC, and CBS—even after the reporters fact-checked him.

Let’s start with Vance’s interview on CNN’s State of the Union, which saw the most time dedicated to the topic—and featured Vance’s most combative exchange.

Host Dana Bash asked Vance why he continues amplifying the claims, given that Springfield has received multiple bomb threats that led to two hospitals going into lockdown Saturday, plus several schools and the city hall being evacuated since Trump mentioned the lies at the debate. As Bash also pointed out, Springfield’s own mayor told a local television station, “All these federal politicians that have negatively spun our city, they need to know they’re hurting our city, and it was their words that did it.”

“These are your constituents,” Bash began, “so why are you putting them at risk by continuing to spread claims about Haitian immigrants, despite officials in your state saying that there’s no evidence and pleading for you to stop?”

Vance replied by insisting that he was amplifying the claims of “firsthand” accounts he heard from his constituents—even though, as Bash pointed out, they don’t appear to have any basis in reality.

On Friday, NBC News reported that the Springfield resident who first shared the false claims on Facebook about migrants eating pets—which she allegedly heard through the grapevine of her neighbor’s daughter’s friend—said she had no firsthand knowledge of any incident and regretted that her post sparked a national rumor, adding, “I feel for the Haitian community.” And as Bash noted, the Clark County Sheriff’s Office examined 11 months of 911 calls and found only one, on Aug. 26, that alleged four Haitians were carrying geese within the city of Springfield, according to a report in the Springfield News-Sun. The sheriff’s office directed the call to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, whose officials were not able to substantiate the claim—but that did not stop Donald Trump Jr. from posting audio of the 911 call to X this week.

But Vance, ultimately, did not seem to be interested in confronting these inconvenient facts. Instead, he called Bash’s implication that his words led to the threats in Springfield “disgusting” and said her question was “more appropriate for a democratic propagandist than it is for an American journalist,” leaving Bash visibly shocked. “We can criticize violence,” Vance added later in the interview. “We can also still talk about the problems that are happening in Springfield, and we should be able to do both those things simultaneously.”

Watch part one of @DanaBashCNN's interview with @JDVance on @CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/pf8LW428Gq

— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) September 15, 2024

When Bash once again gave him an opportunity to acknowledge the rumors about migrants eating pets were unfounded, he did not save himself. “The evidence,” he told Bash, “is the firsthand account of my constituents who are telling me that this happened.”

Things didn’t go much better for Vance on NBC or CBS. He made the same argument—that he believed the accounts he heard from unspecified constituents over fact-checks from officials and the media—to Kristen Welker, host of NBC’s Meet the Press. When she asked why he couldn’t make his argument about immigration without amplifying these lies, he referenced yet another debunked rumor about migrants eating pets in the Ohio city of Dayton, about 30 miles southwest of Springfield.

WATCH: Local officials in Springfield, Ohio, say there’s no evidence of the claims @JDVance has made about Haitian immigrants.

On #MTP, Vance doubles down. pic.twitter.com/0CybDNSbQr

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) September 15, 2024

On CBS the same morning, Vance told Margaret Brennan, host of Face the Nation, that while he condemned violence and the threats that have been phoned into Springfield, he did not believe the claims were “false rumors,” adding, “Everybody who has dealt with a large influx of migration knows that sometimes there are cultural practices that seem very far out there to a lot of Americans…the American media is more interested in fact checking innocent people who are begging for relief than they are in investigating some of these claims.” (Again: Multiple officials have confirmed there is no evidence to support these claims, including the state’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.)

Predictably, Vance and his cronies on the right used the interviewers’ fact-checking of him as evidence of their alleged biases. Donald Trump Jr. lauded him in a post on X for “embarrassing the Fake News.”

As my colleague Noah Lanard pointed out, Springfield is dealing with real challenges as it seeks to accommodate roughly 15,000 Haitian immigrants in a town of 60,000 people: Rent has gotten more expensive, in part due to landlords reducing the number of affordable housing units in the town, and schools are in need of more funding to support their growing numbers. And now, thanks to Vance and others involved in amplifying the falsehoods, there are new issues to worry about in Springfield: Schools and hospitals getting bomb threats, and Haitians are living in fear. But if Vance’s trio of Sunday interviews were any indication, none of this, apparently, is enough to stop him.

Just over a month ago, the Harris-Walz ticket launched what it called “a campaign within a campaign”: an initiative called “Republicans for Harris,” aimed at wooing Trump-skeptical conservatives.

Proof continues to emerge that it’s working. On Sunday, yet another group of influential Republicans—more than a dozen former high-level staffers in former President Ronald Reagan’s administration—voiced their support for Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign and urged other Republicans to follow suit.

In a blistering letter, first reported by CBS, the group invoked the title of Reagan’s famous 1964 speech, “A Time for Choosing,” he delivered on behalf of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, which wound up putting the future president on the national map.

“The time for choosing we face today is a choice between integrity and demagoguery, and the choice must be Harris-Walz,” the ex-staffers wrote. “The choice between truth and lies demands support for Harris-Walz. The choice between freedom and suppression of freedoms means support for Harris-Walz. The choice between serving the people and serving the few leads us to support Harris-Walz.”

The signatories—who include Ken Adelman, US Ambassador to the United Nations under Reagan; Pete Souza, White House photographer for both Reagan and former President Barack Obama; B. Jay Cooper, deputy assistant to Reagan—also said they “know [Reagan] would join us in supporting the Harris-Walz ticket.” (Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R-Ill.] said the same in a post on X this week.)

“Our votes in this election are less about supporting the Democratic Party and more about our resounding support for democracy,” the letter continues. “It’s our hope that this letter will signal to other Republicans and former Republicans that supporting the Democratic ticket this year is the only path forward toward an America that is strong and viable for our children and grandchildren for years to come.”

The group’s endorsement follows that of more than 200 Republican officials who once worked for former President George W. Bush, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), and the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), as I wrote last month. Like the ex-Reagan group, those signatories warned of the dangers of a second Trump term at home and abroad.

Trump does not appear to have commented on the former Reagan staffers’ endorsement of his opponent, instead spending his Sunday morning railing against Taylor Swift, who endorsed Harris this week. But even if he’s not aware of the letter, he has reason to be upset: With “the time for choosing” being only 51 days away, many polls show the candidates neck-and-neck, or Harris pulling ahead by a few points within the margin of error. A new post-debate ABC News/Ipsos poll out Sunday shows Harris leading Trump among all adults 51 to 46, increasing her lead by one point compared to before the debate.

JD Vance loves a Sunday morning media blitz.

In his latest round of television interviews, it appears he will not be swayed by the mounting evidence that the racist lies he amplified about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating pets—which former President Trump repeated on the debate stage this week to 67 million viewers—are demonstrably false. Instead, Trump’s historically unpopular running mate doubled down on his claims in a series of interviews on CNN, NBC, and CBS—even after the reporters fact-checked him.

Let’s start with Vance’s interview on CNN’s State of the Union, which saw the most time dedicated to the topic—and featured Vance’s most combative exchange.

Host Dana Bash asked Vance why he continues amplifying the claims, given that Springfield has received multiple bomb threats that led to two hospitals going into lockdown Saturday, plus several schools and the city hall being evacuated since Trump mentioned the lies at the debate. As Bash also pointed out, Springfield’s own mayor told a local television station, “All these federal politicians that have negatively spun our city, they need to know they’re hurting our city, and it was their words that did it.”

“These are your constituents,” Bash began, “so why are you putting them at risk by continuing to spread claims about Haitian immigrants, despite officials in your state saying that there’s no evidence and pleading for you to stop?”

Vance replied by insisting that he was amplifying the claims of “firsthand” accounts he heard from his constituents—even though, as Bash pointed out, they don’t appear to have any basis in reality.

On Friday, NBC News reported that the Springfield resident who first shared the false claims on Facebook about migrants eating pets—which she allegedly heard through the grapevine of her neighbor’s daughter’s friend—said she had no firsthand knowledge of any incident and regretted that her post sparked a national rumor, adding, “I feel for the Haitian community.” And as Bash noted, the Clark County Sheriff’s Office examined 11 months of 911 calls and found only one, on Aug. 26, that alleged four Haitians were carrying geese within the city of Springfield, according to a report in the Springfield News-Sun. The sheriff’s office directed the call to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, whose officials were not able to substantiate the claim—but that did not stop Donald Trump Jr. from posting audio of the 911 call to X this week.

But Vance, ultimately, did not seem to be interested in confronting these inconvenient facts. Instead, he called Bash’s implication that his words led to the threats in Springfield “disgusting” and said her question was “more appropriate for a democratic propagandist than it is for an American journalist,” leaving Bash visibly shocked. “We can criticize violence,” Vance added later in the interview. “We can also still talk about the problems that are happening in Springfield, and we should be able to do both those things simultaneously.”

Watch part one of @DanaBashCNN's interview with @JDVance on @CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/pf8LW428Gq

— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) September 15, 2024

When Bash once again gave him an opportunity to acknowledge the rumors about migrants eating pets were unfounded, he did not save himself. “The evidence,” he told Bash, “is the firsthand account of my constituents who are telling me that this happened.”

Things didn’t go much better for Vance on NBC or CBS. He made the same argument—that he believed the accounts he heard from unspecified constituents over fact-checks from officials and the media—to Kristen Welker, host of NBC’s Meet the Press. When she asked why he couldn’t make his argument about immigration without amplifying these lies, he referenced yet another debunked rumor about migrants eating pets in the Ohio city of Dayton, about 30 miles southwest of Springfield.

WATCH: Local officials in Springfield, Ohio, say there’s no evidence of the claims @JDVance has made about Haitian immigrants.

On #MTP, Vance doubles down. pic.twitter.com/0CybDNSbQr

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) September 15, 2024

On CBS the same morning, Vance told Margaret Brennan, host of Face the Nation, that while he condemned violence and the threats that have been phoned into Springfield, he did not believe the claims were “false rumors,” adding, “Everybody who has dealt with a large influx of migration knows that sometimes there are cultural practices that seem very far out there to a lot of Americans…the American media is more interested in fact checking innocent people who are begging for relief than they are in investigating some of these claims.” (Again: Multiple officials have confirmed there is no evidence to support these claims, including the state’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.)

Predictably, Vance and his cronies on the right used the interviewers’ fact-checking of him as evidence of their alleged biases. Donald Trump Jr. lauded him in a post on X for “embarrassing the Fake News.”

As my colleague Noah Lanard pointed out, Springfield is dealing with real challenges as it seeks to accommodate roughly 15,000 Haitian immigrants in a town of 60,000 people: Rent has gotten more expensive, in part due to landlords reducing the number of affordable housing units in the town, and schools are in need of more funding to support their growing numbers. And now, thanks to Vance and others involved in amplifying the falsehoods, there are new issues to worry about in Springfield: Schools and hospitals getting bomb threats, and Haitians are living in fear. But if Vance’s trio of Sunday interviews were any indication, none of this, apparently, is enough to stop him.

Just over a month ago, the Harris-Walz ticket launched what it called “a campaign within a campaign”: an initiative called “Republicans for Harris,” aimed at wooing Trump-skeptical conservatives.

Proof continues to emerge that it’s working. On Sunday, yet another group of influential Republicans—more than a dozen former high-level staffers in former President Ronald Reagan’s administration—voiced their support for Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign and urged other Republicans to follow suit.

In a blistering letter, first reported by CBS, the group invoked the title of Reagan’s famous 1964 speech, “A Time for Choosing,” he delivered on behalf of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, which wound up putting the future president on the national map.

“The time for choosing we face today is a choice between integrity and demagoguery, and the choice must be Harris-Walz,” the ex-staffers wrote. “The choice between truth and lies demands support for Harris-Walz. The choice between freedom and suppression of freedoms means support for Harris-Walz. The choice between serving the people and serving the few leads us to support Harris-Walz.”

The signatories—who include Ken Adelman, US Ambassador to the United Nations under Reagan; Pete Souza, White House photographer for both Reagan and former President Barack Obama; B. Jay Cooper, deputy assistant to Reagan—also said they “know [Reagan] would join us in supporting the Harris-Walz ticket.” (Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R-Ill.] said the same in a post on X this week.)

“Our votes in this election are less about supporting the Democratic Party and more about our resounding support for democracy,” the letter continues. “It’s our hope that this letter will signal to other Republicans and former Republicans that supporting the Democratic ticket this year is the only path forward toward an America that is strong and viable for our children and grandchildren for years to come.”

The group’s endorsement follows that of more than 200 Republican officials who once worked for former President George W. Bush, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), and the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), as I wrote last month. Like the ex-Reagan group, those signatories warned of the dangers of a second Trump term at home and abroad.

Trump does not appear to have commented on the former Reagan staffers’ endorsement of his opponent, instead spending his Sunday morning railing against Taylor Swift, who endorsed Harris this week. But even if he’s not aware of the letter, he has reason to be upset: With “the time for choosing” being only 51 days away, many polls show the candidates neck-and-neck, or Harris pulling ahead by a few points within the margin of error. A new post-debate ABC News/Ipsos poll out Sunday shows Harris leading Trump among all adults 51 to 46, increasing her lead by one point compared to before the debate.

Vice President Kamala Harris just showed why she is a better candidate on abortion than President Biden ever was.

In a blistering response to former President Donald Trump’s rambling about his ever-shifting stance on abortion—which included appointing three of the five Supreme Court justices who overruled Roe v. Wade—Harris put the ex-president on blast for what she has been calling the “Trump abortion bans” now present in over a dozen states.

“One does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government and Donald Trump certainly should not be telling a woman what to do with her body,” Harris said.

Kamala Harris’ full response on abortion pic.twitter.com/QEVkM5WjkR

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 11, 2024

And when Trump repeated his false claim that “every legal scholar” wanted Roe overruled, Harris promptly laid out the devastating consequences of the Dobbs decision.

“Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term, suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because the health care providers are afraid they might go to jail, and she is bleeding out in a car in the parking lot—she didn’t want that. Her husband didn’t want that,” Harris said.

“A 12 or 13 year old survivor of incest being forced to carry a pregnancy to term—they don’t want that,” she continued. Harris pledged to sign legislation restoring Roe into law if Congress passed it during her presidency—and noted that Trump could very well sign a national abortion ban if reelected, as Project 2025 recommends.

“Understand, in his Project 2025, there would be a national abortion monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages,” she said. “I think the American people believe that certain freedoms—in particular, the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body—should not be made by the government.”

Tonight, Harris showed exactly why abortion rights advocates see her as their ideal messenger: In clear and forceful language, she described the health care apocalypse Trump helped create, and the first-hand experiences of pregnant people bearing the brunt of it. When Biden talked about abortion during the first debate, on the other hand, it was a garbled, confusing mess that ended with him talking about immigration.

But in fairness, Trump was also clear about his stance on abortion: When asked two different times, he refused to answer whether he would veto a federal abortion ban if Congress passed one.

Melania Trump broke her months-long silence on the assassination attempt against her husband with a video that amplified unproven conspiracy theories about the July shooting before swiftly turning to promote her forthcoming memoir.

The video—which, in my opinion, resembles a deep fake overlaid with a Kris Jenner filter— was posted to X on Tuesday morning, and featured Melania standing before a black backdrop while ominous music plays in the background. “The attempt to end my husband’s life was a horrible, distressing experience,” she says, addressing the camera. “Now, the silence around it feels heavy. I can’t help but wonder, why didn’t law enforcement officials arrest the shooter before the speech?”

https://t.co/ZCTwZSqZND pic.twitter.com/KKA6anTEYC

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) September 10, 2024

“There is definitely more to the story,” she adds, “and we need to uncover the truth.” A visual of the cover of her eponymous book then flashes on the screen, along with a message encouraging followers to order the book at her website. It’s unclear what, if any, connection the memoir, slated for release in early October according to the publisher, will have to her husband’s shooting. The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to questions.

The rare video appearance makes Melania now one of many people in Trump’s orbit who has conspiratorially suggested that nefarious forces enabled the shooting. As my colleague Mark Follman has covered, two of Trump’s sons, Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), and Republicans in Congress have cast blame on Democrats for the shooting—all without evidence. (As Mark reported, the motive of the shooter—who was a registered Republican—remains unknown.) Trump himself has also taken part in the narrative, telling television psychologist Dr. Phil in a late August interview, “I think to a certain extent it’s Biden’s fault and Harris’ fault. And I’m the opponent. Look, they were weaponizing government against me, they brought in the whole DOJ to try and get me. They weren’t too interested in my health and safety.”

“They’re saying I’m a threat to democracy,” Trump added in that interview. “They would say that, that was [a] standard line, just keep saying it, and you know that can get assassins or potential assassins going…Maybe that bullet is because of their rhetoric.”

Experts warn that such unfounded allegations can give rise to retaliatory violence from Trump-loving extremists.

This continuing vilification adds to what law enforcement and threat assessment sources have told me is a paramount risk headed toward the election: potential bloodshed stemming from Donald Trump’s long-running campaign of incitement, including his message that he is supposedly the victim of a sweeping conspiracy by his political opponents. That core Trump narrative has now been supercharged by the assassination attempt, in which three attendees also were shot, one fatally.

As Melania mentions in her video, questions do remain about the catastrophic security failures that allowed the shooter to scale a roof without law enforcement intervening sooner. But those questions are the subjects of ongoing federal investigations—which will not be led or solved by Melania or anyone else in MAGA-world.

Melania Trump broke her months-long silence on the assassination attempt against her husband with a video that amplified unproven conspiracy theories about the July shooting before swiftly turning to promote her forthcoming memoir.

The video—which, in my opinion, resembles a deep fake overlaid with a Kris Jenner filter— was posted to X on Tuesday morning, and featured Melania standing before a black backdrop while ominous music plays in the background. “The attempt to end my husband’s life was a horrible, distressing experience,” she says, addressing the camera. “Now, the silence around it feels heavy. I can’t help but wonder, why didn’t law enforcement officials arrest the shooter before the speech?”

https://t.co/ZCTwZSqZND pic.twitter.com/KKA6anTEYC

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) September 10, 2024

“There is definitely more to the story,” she adds, “and we need to uncover the truth.” A visual of the cover of her eponymous book then flashes on the screen, along with a message encouraging followers to order the book at her website. It’s unclear what, if any, connection the memoir, slated for release in early October according to the publisher, will have to her husband’s shooting. The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to questions.

The rare video appearance makes Melania now one of many people in Trump’s orbit who has conspiratorially suggested that nefarious forces enabled the shooting. As my colleague Mark Follman has covered, two of Trump’s sons, Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), and Republicans in Congress have cast blame on Democrats for the shooting—all without evidence. (As Mark reported, the motive of the shooter—who was a registered Republican—remains unknown.) Trump himself has also taken part in the narrative, telling television psychologist Dr. Phil in a late August interview, “I think to a certain extent it’s Biden’s fault and Harris’ fault. And I’m the opponent. Look, they were weaponizing government against me, they brought in the whole DOJ to try and get me. They weren’t too interested in my health and safety.”

“They’re saying I’m a threat to democracy,” Trump added in that interview. “They would say that, that was [a] standard line, just keep saying it, and you know that can get assassins or potential assassins going…Maybe that bullet is because of their rhetoric.”

Experts warn that such unfounded allegations can give rise to retaliatory violence from Trump-loving extremists.

This continuing vilification adds to what law enforcement and threat assessment sources have told me is a paramount risk headed toward the election: potential bloodshed stemming from Donald Trump’s long-running campaign of incitement, including his message that he is supposedly the victim of a sweeping conspiracy by his political opponents. That core Trump narrative has now been supercharged by the assassination attempt, in which three attendees also were shot, one fatally.

As Melania mentions in her video, questions do remain about the catastrophic security failures that allowed the shooter to scale a roof without law enforcement intervening sooner. But those questions are the subjects of ongoing federal investigations—which will not be led or solved by Melania or anyone else in MAGA-world.

The Florida government seems to be doing everything it can—including potentially breaking the law—to prevent voters from approving an abortion rights ballot measure in November.

On Thursday, the state’s health department debuted a webpage spreading misinformation about Amendment 4, a ballot measure appearing in November seeking to override the state’s six-week abortion ban that the Florida Supreme Court approved in April. If it receives the required 60 percent of votes to pass, the amendment would guarantee the right to abortion before the point of so-called fetal viability, which is generally understood to be around 24 weeks gestation. But the state’s new webpage—which DeSantis has since defended as a “public service announcement”—attacks the initiative with a litany of false claims, including that it “threatens women’s safety,” would “eliminate parental consent” for minors seeking abortions, and could “lead to unregulated and unsafe abortions” by allowing people without healthcare expertise to perform the procedure.

Those claims, though, are easily debunked by taking a look at the actual text of the amendment, which explicitly states that a patient’s healthcare provider is responsible for determining when an abortion after viability is necessary to protect a patient’s health. It also says that passage of the amendment would not override the authority of the legislature to require that a minor’s parent or guardian is notified before they obtain an abortion.

But the state’s campaign against the amendment doesn’t stop there. On the same day of the site’s launch, the Tampa Bay Times reported that the Florida Department of State was looking for evidence of fraud in the more than 30,000 citizen signatures used to get the amendment on the November ballot. Two election supervisors told the paper that the move was “highly unusual” given that the signatures had already been approved by local supervisors. The Tampa Bay Times also reported Friday that police had visited the homes of at least two voters who had signed the petition supporting Amendment 4 seeking to verify their signatures.

The anti-abortion efforts are the latest in Gov. Ron DeSantis‘ ongoing fight to defeat Amendment 4 after launching a political spending committee aimed at doing just that in May. (It has raised $3.7 million to date.) Now abortion rights advocates say DeSantis’ government is hoping to scare voters into voting against the amendment. “To our knowledge, it is unprecedented for the State to expressly advocate against a citizen-led initiative,” Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said Thursday. “This kind of propaganda issued by the state, using taxpayer money and operating outside of the political process sets a dangerous precedent.”

On Friday, the Florida Democratic Party said in a statement that it had submitted a public records request seeking information on when the agency started working on the webpage and who was involved. “Ron [DeSantis] and his buddies know they’re losing, and they’re willing to do anything—including breaking the law—to rig the results in their favor,” Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried said in a statement, adding that the party is also pursuing legal action to try to have the page taken down. State Senate Democratic Leader Lauren Book also said her office was investigating legal action in response to the webpage.

The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration did not respond to questions from Mother Jones about how much the web page cost to establish and maintain, who demanded its creation, why it includes false and misleading information, and how officials respond to criticism about the site. Instead, the agency provided the following statement: “Part of the Agency’s mission is to provide information and transparency to Floridians on the quality of care they receive. Our new transparency page serves to educate Floridians on the state’s current abortion laws and provide information on a proposed policy change that would impact care across the state.”

Now some have warned that the DeSantis administration’s use of government resources for political purposes could be illegal. Meanwhile, polling suggests the majority of Florida voters support the amendment.

The Florida government seems to be doing everything it can—including potentially breaking the law—to prevent voters from approving an abortion rights ballot measure in November.

On Thursday, the state’s health department debuted a webpage spreading misinformation about Amendment 4, a ballot measure appearing in November seeking to override the state’s six-week abortion ban that the Florida Supreme Court approved in April. If it receives the required 60 percent of votes to pass, the amendment would guarantee the right to abortion before the point of so-called fetal viability, which is generally understood to be around 24 weeks gestation. But the state’s new webpage—which DeSantis has since defended as a “public service announcement”—attacks the initiative with a litany of false claims, including that it “threatens women’s safety,” would “eliminate parental consent” for minors seeking abortions, and could “lead to unregulated and unsafe abortions” by allowing people without healthcare expertise to perform the procedure.

Those claims, though, are easily debunked by taking a look at the actual text of the amendment, which explicitly states that a patient’s healthcare provider is responsible for determining when an abortion after viability is necessary to protect a patient’s health. It also says that passage of the amendment would not override the authority of the legislature to require that a minor’s parent or guardian is notified before they obtain an abortion.

But the state’s campaign against the amendment doesn’t stop there. On the same day of the site’s launch, the Tampa Bay Times reported that the Florida Department of State was looking for evidence of fraud in the more than 30,000 citizen signatures used to get the amendment on the November ballot. Two election supervisors told the paper that the move was “highly unusual” given that the signatures had already been approved by local supervisors. The Tampa Bay Times also reported Friday that police had visited the homes of at least two voters who had signed the petition supporting Amendment 4 seeking to verify their signatures.

The anti-abortion efforts are the latest in Gov. Ron DeSantis‘ ongoing fight to defeat Amendment 4 after launching a political spending committee aimed at doing just that in May. (It has raised $3.7 million to date.) Now abortion rights advocates say DeSantis’ government is hoping to scare voters into voting against the amendment. “To our knowledge, it is unprecedented for the State to expressly advocate against a citizen-led initiative,” Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said Thursday. “This kind of propaganda issued by the state, using taxpayer money and operating outside of the political process sets a dangerous precedent.”

On Friday, the Florida Democratic Party said in a statement that it had submitted a public records request seeking information on when the agency started working on the webpage and who was involved. “Ron [DeSantis] and his buddies know they’re losing, and they’re willing to do anything—including breaking the law—to rig the results in their favor,” Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried said in a statement, adding that the party is also pursuing legal action to try to have the page taken down. State Senate Democratic Leader Lauren Book also said her office was investigating legal action in response to the webpage.

The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration did not respond to questions from Mother Jones about how much the web page cost to establish and maintain, who demanded its creation, why it includes false and misleading information, and how officials respond to criticism about the site. Instead, the agency provided the following statement: “Part of the Agency’s mission is to provide information and transparency to Floridians on the quality of care they receive. Our new transparency page serves to educate Floridians on the state’s current abortion laws and provide information on a proposed policy change that would impact care across the state.”

Now some have warned that the DeSantis administration’s use of government resources for political purposes could be illegal. Meanwhile, polling suggests the majority of Florida voters support the amendment.

On Friday night, a Missouri judge handed down a ruling that could threaten voters’ abilities to enshrine reproductive rights in the state’s constitution this November. It is a massive setback for one of most consequential abortion ballot measures this year.

After the Supreme Court overruled Roe in its June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Missouri began enforcing its near-total abortion ban that had been dormant until Dobbs. Soon after, activists began pushing for a ballot measure, Amendment 3, to bring back abortion to the state. In May, organizers in Missouri turned in more than 380,000 signatures in their bid to get the proposed amendment on the ballot, compared to the 172,000 required.

The proposed amendment stipulates that the government cannot “deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom” and that abortion cannot be restricted in the state before fetal viability. It also says that life and health exceptions must be respected and that people cannot be prosecuted for helping someone obtain an abortion or for their own pregnancy outcomes.

On Friday, Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh ruled that the proposed Amendment 3 should be removed from the November ballot because it does not specify which specific anti-abortion laws it would repeal. (Advocates say that exact laws for repeal would be determined by future lawsuits.)

In his ruling, Limbaugh wrote that he “recognizes the gravity of the unique issues involved in this case” and would stay his ruling until Tuesday, “so that further guidance or rulings can be provided by a reviewing court.”

In a statement, Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the group behind the ballot measure initiative, called the judge’s decision a “profound injustice,” adding that the group plans to appeal. “Our fight to ensure that voters—not politicians—have the final say is far from over,” Sweet said.

Limbaugh’s ruling represents just the latest roadblock that Missouri reproductive rights advocates have encountered. As my colleague Madison Pauly reported, anti-abortion officials in the state stymied advocates’ attempts to bring a ballot measure to voters in 2019. As Madison chronicled, advocates also fought amongst themselves about whether the proposed ballot measure should seek to restore Roe or go beyond it:

In the months following the 2022 election, the group—a mix of advocates including the state ACLU and Planned Parenthood affiliates and the local activist group Abortion Action Missouri—splintered. Some members, including [Executive Director of Medical Students for Choice Pamela] Merritt, wanted to go with language that would enshrine a broad right to abortion. Others wanted to consider an amendment with baked-in compromises in the hopes of winning over more voters. They proposed letting the state impose or preserve restrictions that the larger abortion-rights movement often condemns, including a ban on procedures after so-called fetal viability—the hard-to-pin-down point in pregnancy at which a fetus has a decent chance of surviving outside the uterus. (Viability limits often include an exception for abortions needed to protect a pregnant patient’s life or health.)

Now, based on Limbaugh’s order, it seems they may not get anything they were hoping for.

On Friday night, a Missouri judge handed down a ruling that could threaten voters’ abilities to enshrine reproductive rights in the state’s constitution this November. It is a massive setback for one of most consequential abortion ballot measures this year.

After the Supreme Court overruled Roe in its June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Missouri began enforcing its near-total abortion ban that had been dormant until Dobbs. Soon after, activists began pushing for a ballot measure, Amendment 3, to bring back abortion to the state. In May, organizers in Missouri turned in more than 380,000 signatures in their bid to get the proposed amendment on the ballot, compared to the 172,000 required.

The proposed amendment stipulates that the government cannot “deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom” and that abortion cannot be restricted in the state before fetal viability. It also says that life and health exceptions must be respected and that people cannot be prosecuted for helping someone obtain an abortion or for their own pregnancy outcomes.

On Friday, Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh ruled that the proposed Amendment 3 should be removed from the November ballot because it does not specify which specific anti-abortion laws it would repeal. (Advocates say that exact laws for repeal would be determined by future lawsuits.)

In his ruling, Limbaugh wrote that he “recognizes the gravity of the unique issues involved in this case” and would stay his ruling until Tuesday, “so that further guidance or rulings can be provided by a reviewing court.”

In a statement, Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the group behind the ballot measure initiative, called the judge’s decision a “profound injustice,” adding that the group plans to appeal. “Our fight to ensure that voters—not politicians—have the final say is far from over,” Sweet said.

Limbaugh’s ruling represents just the latest roadblock that Missouri reproductive rights advocates have encountered. As my colleague Madison Pauly reported, anti-abortion officials in the state stymied advocates’ attempts to bring a ballot measure to voters in 2019. As Madison chronicled, advocates also fought amongst themselves about whether the proposed ballot measure should seek to restore Roe or go beyond it:

In the months following the 2022 election, the group—a mix of advocates including the state ACLU and Planned Parenthood affiliates and the local activist group Abortion Action Missouri—splintered. Some members, including [Executive Director of Medical Students for Choice Pamela] Merritt, wanted to go with language that would enshrine a broad right to abortion. Others wanted to consider an amendment with baked-in compromises in the hopes of winning over more voters. They proposed letting the state impose or preserve restrictions that the larger abortion-rights movement often condemns, including a ban on procedures after so-called fetal viability—the hard-to-pin-down point in pregnancy at which a fetus has a decent chance of surviving outside the uterus. (Viability limits often include an exception for abortions needed to protect a pregnant patient’s life or health.)

Now, based on Limbaugh’s order, it seems they may not get anything they were hoping for.

It only took four years, but former President Donald Trump appears to be finally admitting that he lost the 2020 election.

In a podcast interview with Russian American computer scientist Lex Fridman that aired Tuesday, Trump acknowledged that he lost the presidential election “by a whisker.” (You can check out Trump’s comments around the 11:10 mark.) The surprising remarks follow a similar comment by Trump at a Moms for Liberty conference last week, saying Biden “beat us by a whisker”—before baselessly claiming that Democrats “used Covid to cheat.” At a press conference at the southern border last month, Trump said that he came up “just a little bit short” in the last election.

Of course, the race was not as close as Trump would like to believe: Biden won 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232, and the current president won more than 7 million more votes than Trump in the popular vote. Still, this is progress compared to Trump’s years of election denialism, which, of course, helped fuel the 2021 insurrection at the Capitol.

So why does Trump appear to be slowly embracing reality? It may have something to do with the fact that judges found more than 60 of his election lawsuits to be without merit. But the change could just as likely be related to the fact that election denialism is not a popular position: An ABC News/Ipsos poll released last week found that 81 percent of Americans are prepared to accept the election results no matter who wins, including 92 percent of Harris supporters and 76 percent of Trump supporters. Further, while 68 percent of Americans think Harris will be prepared to accept the outcome, only 29 percent think the same of Trump. But milquetoast, extremely delayed acknowledgments of reality may not be enough to convince voters that Trump is done with the lies, especially given his steadfast commitment to lying about, well, everything else.

Spokespeople for the Trump and Harris campaigns, and the White House, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

It only took four years, but former President Donald Trump appears to be finally admitting that he lost the 2020 election.

In a podcast interview with Russian American computer scientist Lex Fridman that aired Tuesday, Trump acknowledged that he lost the presidential election “by a whisker.” (You can check out Trump’s comments around the 11:10 mark.) The surprising remarks follow a similar comment by Trump at a Moms for Liberty conference last week, saying Biden “beat us by a whisker”—before baselessly claiming that Democrats “used Covid to cheat.” At a press conference at the southern border last month, Trump said that he came up “just a little bit short” in the last election.

Of course, the race was not as close as Trump would like to believe: Biden won 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232, and the current president won more than 7 million more votes than Trump in the popular vote. Still, this is progress compared to Trump’s years of election denialism, which, of course, helped fuel the 2021 insurrection at the Capitol.

So why does Trump appear to be slowly embracing reality? It may have something to do with the fact that judges found more than 60 of his election lawsuits to be without merit. But the change could just as likely be related to the fact that election denialism is not a popular position: An ABC News/Ipsos poll released last week found that 81 percent of Americans are prepared to accept the election results no matter who wins, including 92 percent of Harris supporters and 76 percent of Trump supporters. Further, while 68 percent of Americans think Harris will be prepared to accept the outcome, only 29 percent think the same of Trump. But milquetoast, extremely delayed acknowledgments of reality may not be enough to convince voters that Trump is done with the lies, especially given his steadfast commitment to lying about, well, everything else.

Spokespeople for the Trump and Harris campaigns, and the White House, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Bad news for the Trump campaign: Despite their candidate’s desperation to distance himself from Project 2025, connections keep emerging between Trump, his allies, and the authors of the right-wing playbook for a second Trump term.

The latest one? Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, wrote the introduction to a 2017 report published by the Heritage Foundation—the group behind the publication of Project 2025—that promoted banning abortion nationwide and criticized IVF. The news, first reported by the New York Times, comes at a particularly bad time for the Trump campaign. Both Trump and Vance have flip-flopped on their abortion stances in light of the fallout—and political unpopularity—of rising abortion bans. That includes Trump saying that, if reelected, he wants to make the government or insurance companies pay for IVF.

Compared with some of Vance’s other actions and comments—including lambasting childfree “cat ladies,” journalists, and teachers, and supporting the federal criminalization of the mailing of abortion pills (which Vance has since walked back)—his introduction to the Heritage Foundation report reads as rather tame. In it, he acknowledged criticism Trump faced “for painting an overly pessimistic view of his own country.” (See Trump’s dystopian inauguration speech on “American carnage.”) Later in the introduction, Vance wrote that people living in poverty—as Vance did growing up—should not necessarily be blamed for their circumstances:

We should not glance quickly at the poor and suggest that their problems derive entirely from their own bad decisions before moving on to other matters. Rather, we should consider the very intuitive fact that the way we grow up shapes us. It molds our attitudes, our habits, and our decisions. It sets boundaries for how we perceive possibilities in our own lives.

But other essays included in the report introduced by Vance are far more dogmatic. An essay by Jeanne Mancini, president of the anti-abortion March for Life Education and Defense Fund, states that her group’s goal is for “abortion [to] become unthinkable in the United States.” An essay by Jennifer Lahl, founder and president of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, an organization that criticizes surrogacy and assisted reproductive technologies, denounces IVF and delay in general with childbearing: “The truth is that for both mother and child, pregnancy is better earlier rather than later. Assisted reproductive technology and egg freezing are not magic pills to take when you are ready for a baby.” Another essay characterizes the birth of children to unwed parents as a “tragedy.”

Republicans have been on the defensive ever since advocates have raised alarms about the Dobbs decision imperiling IVF access, which has already come to pass in Alabama, whose state Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that embryos should be considered the same as children. But given that Senate Republicans subsequently blocked a vote on a bill to protect IVF access nationwide, they have not inspired much confidence—which Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign has been using to its advantage, outlining the dangers Trump could pose to IVF access in a second term.

It’s no surprise that Vance’s team has tried to downplay his role in the Heritage report. Luke Schroeder, a spokesperson for Vance, told the Times: “Senator Vance has long made clear that he supports I.V.F. and does not agree with every opinion in this seven-year-old report, which features a range of unique views from dozens of conservative thinkers.” The spokesperson also told the Times that Vance “did not have any input on the commentary” included in the report. Noah Weinrich, a spokesperson for the Heritage Foundation, told the Times that Vance “had no role in producing or approving the contents of the 2017 Index of Culture and Opportunity, outside of writing the introduction.”

Yet that does not change the fact that Vance’s involvement provides yet another piece of evidence that Trump and his team have many ties to the same people behind Project 2025; Vance also wrote the introduction to a forthcoming book by Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation and architect of Project 2025, being marketed as a roadmap for conservatives to “take back” the country and various institutions within it.

“As it turns out, Donald Trump’s running mate cosigned Project 2025’s radical agenda to undermine IVF, ban abortion nationwide, and control women’s most personal health care decisions long before it even had a name,” Harris-Walz 2024 Spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said in a statement. Chitika added that the Times report “confirms that Trump, Vance, and their Project 2025 allies’ plans have been in the works for nearly a decade—if they get the chance, they will rip away women’s freedoms in every corner of this country.”