Politics
Trump’s Changing Messages on Abortion, in 660 Quotes
When he first ran for president, Donald J. Trump talked repeatedly about his opposition to abortion. “I’m pro-life, and I was originally pro-choice,” he said in 2016. Another time that year, he said, “I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges.” In total in 2016, according to a New York Times analysis, he described himself as “pro-life” 36 times:
.
In this campaign, though, he hardly ever uses the term. This year, he has described himself as “pro-life” once:
.
During his re-election campaign in 2020, Mr. Trump often spoke of his support for a federal ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. In total, before the Supreme Court decision that ended the national right to abortion in 2022, he expressed his support for a federal ban 50 times:
.
Since the court’s decision, Dobbs v. Jackson, which allowed individual states to ban abortion, he has expressed support for a federal ban only once
, saying, “It could be a state ban, it could be a federal ban.”
More often, he has said the exact opposite, that he opposes a federal ban. Since the court’s decision, he has said that 11 times:
. “I’m not signing a ban, and there’s no reason to sign a ban”; “There will not be a federal ban”; “I’m not signing a national abortion bill.”
We looked at all the statements Mr. Trump has made about abortion since he first ran for president, in speeches, interviews and posts online, that were cataloged by Roll Call Factba.se. We categorized 660 of them based on the words he used. The analysis shows how his messaging over the last decade has changed with the political moment — and how this year he has tried to distance himself from the core beliefs of the anti-abortion movement.
The way Donald Trump has talked about abortion changed after the Dobbs decision. Below, a comparison of the themes Mr. Trump mentioned most in his public statements, based on a Times analysis.
Some statements appear in more than one theme.
Trump’s Statements on Abortion Before and After Dobbs
There is no evidence that Mr. Trump’s stance on abortion has changed. As president, he did more to restrict abortion rights in the United States than any other president, including by appointing three of the six Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. As recently as the September debate, he took credit, saying, “I did a great service in doing it.” Anti-abortion groups have laid out a pathway for him to effectively ban abortion nationwide if he is re-elected.
As it became clear that the Dobbs decision was hurting some Republican candidates, however, he changed his messaging, sometimes directly contradicting himself. He said as much in April, when he released a video on Truth Social emphasizing that Republicans needed to talk about abortion in a way that would appeal to voters: “You must follow your heart on this issue. But remember, you must also win elections.”
Mr. Trump’s ambiguous or even contradictory statements can allow voters to hear whichever message they want to hear, political analysts said.
Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, said that Mr. Trump had been consistent in his stance on abortion, and that he had always supported the rights of states to make decisions on abortion rights.
Jason Rapert, founder and president of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, which supports a nationwide abortion ban, said, “I think we should remember the Donald Trump of 2016, and what he was saying from his heart, and he made good on those policy decisions.”
Mr. Rapert said he was “extremely disappointed” to hear Mr. Trump say he did not support a federal abortion ban. But he does not necessarily believe him, he said: “I realized that he really is delivering messaging that came from many of the consultants around him.”
Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, said Mr. Trump was giving mixed messages because he was trying to hold onto the support of evangelical voters while also trying to win back moderates who have turned against him because of his role in overturning Roe.
“It’s a winning strategy with evangelicals — you never hear born-again Christians are defecting; they’re not,” Ms. Lake said. “It’s been a loss with suburban women, with younger women, with the moderate Republican women who now call themselves independents, and he’s been trying to figure out a way to get them back.”
In her polling and focus groups, she said, many voters have never really believed that Mr. Trump opposes abortion. His recent rhetoric “just reinforces that his heart’s not really in it, he doesn’t really believe this,” she said. “But on the other hand, the MAGA party does believe in it, and his political calculations are such that he did Dobbs and he will continue to do more.”
Trump’s evolution
Before he became a national political figure, Mr. Trump had described himself as “very pro-choice,” so in his initial run for president as a Republican, he repeatedly emphasized that he had abandoned that position.
Times Trump described himself as “pro-life,” by quarter
“I am pro-life”
Mr. Trump was courting the evangelical wing of the Republican Party, whose votes he needed. He promised to appoint “pro-life judges” to the Supreme Court. He made abortion restrictions a staple of his 2016 campaign, speaking often about how important the issue was.
Times Trump said abortion is an important issue, by quarterAbortion is an important issue
After he was elected, Mr. Trump kept many of his promises to the anti-abortion movement. He enacted several regulatory policies that limited funding for abortion and organizations that supported it. He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court from a list of candidates pre-approved by the anti-abortion movement.
As he approached his re-election campaign, he supported a bill in Congress that would have banned abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The bill was a major theme of campaign rallies, and was featured in his 2020 State of the Union address and a speech that year at the March for Life, the anti-abortion movement’s biggest annual event. He was the first sitting president to speak there.
He called on Congress to “defend the dignity of life and to pass legislation prohibiting late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in their mother’s womb.”
Times Trump said he supports federal abortion restrictions, by quarterSupports federal restrictions
After the Dobbs decision overturning the right to abortion in 2022, Mr. Trump often celebrated his role in it: “If you look at what we’ve done with Roe v. Wade, we did something that everyone said couldn’t be done, and we got it done.”
At the presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris in September, he again praised Dobbs, and “the genius and heart and strength” of the Supreme Court justices who supported it.
Later that month, he extolled his record on the issue: “I’ve done an unbelievable job on the abortion question.”
He often said that all Americans or “all legal scholars” supported the court’s decision to overturn Roe, despite polling majorities and numerous legal briefs that opposed it.
During this campaign, though, he has sent mixed messages. At first, he said he would support a Florida measure expanding abortion access, then said he wouldn’t. He said he wouldn’t restrict access to abortion pills, then said he was open to it.
He has not always directly answered questions about his personal views on abortion. Often, he avoids it by embracing the fact that Dobbs allowed states to restrict and ban abortion: “It doesn’t matter because this issue has now been taken over by the states.”
Before Dobbs, he did not say much about believing abortion should be decided by the states. Now, he says it instead of answering questions about new federal policies he might pursue as president.
His party platform also emphasizes that abortion rights are a decision for the states, saying only that the party opposes “late-term abortion.” Then it shifts to other topics, like support for prenatal care, and access to birth control and in vitro fertilization.
He also deflects by saying the Democrats have taken extreme positions: “The radicals are really the Democrats because they’ll kill babies in their eighth and ninth month and they’ll kill babies after birth.” In fact, infanticide is illegal in every state. Arguments about Democratic extremism were also a staple of his 2020 re-election campaign speeches, but he is talking about that even more now.
He has also recently repeated his support for exceptions to abortion bans for women who are victims of rape or incest, or whose lives are threatened by their pregnancies. These statements somewhat conflict with his embrace of state-based approaches to abortion policy, since many states with abortion bans do not have these exceptions.
Melania Trump, the former first lady, published a book this month in which she said she supported abortion rights, a surprise that some political analysts said was a calculated move to appeal to more moderate voters.
For much of this campaign, Mr. Trump declined to say whether he would veto a federal abortion ban.
Then, in recent weeks, he changed course again, saying that he would veto a federal ban, in direct opposition to the goals of the anti-abortion movement. He said in an online message earlier this month: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it, because it is up to the states to decide based on the will of their voters.”
Otherwise, Mr. Trump is not talking much about how he would handle abortion policy from the executive branch. Regardless of who wins the election, major federal legislation on the topic is unlikely to pass Congress in the next few years.
Instead, he has begun saying abortion is not an important issue: “The country’s falling apart,” he said recently. “We’re going to end up in World War III, and all they can talk about is abortion. That’s all they talk about. And it really no longer pertains because we’ve done something on abortion that nobody thought was possible.”
But the president still has major influence on abortion access nationwide, through regulations and executive actions. In Mr. Trump’s last administration, he cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood for contraceptive services. He appointed numerous federal judges who oppose abortion rights. If elected again, he could also use the Food and Drug Administration or the Justice Department to ban or restrict the mailing of abortion pills, which have contributed to increased abortion access since Dobbs.
“I know he’s steering clear with only days left until the election,” said Mr. Rapert of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, “but clearly the federal government can do more.”
The complete list of Trump’s statements on abortion
Here is a list of Mr. Trump’s statements on abortion since 2015, organized by topic.
Oct. 2016 Breitbart News interview
May 2018
Susan B. Anthony Campaign for Life Gala speech Jan. 2019
March for Life speech
June 2020
Christian Broadcasting Network interview
Oct. 2020
Rally, Pensacola, Fla.
Oct. 2020 Rally, Lititz, Pa.
Sept. 2023
Rally, Dubuque, Iowa Sept. 2024
Rally in Indiana, Pa.
Methodology Transcriptions and related metadata were provided by Roll Call FactBa.se.
The analysis included transcripts from every public appearance by Mr. Trump, including every speech, interview, rally and debate, during his campaigns in 2016, 2020 and 2024 (through Oct. 23) and during his presidency. It includes appearances after he left office and before he started his campaign in late 2023, but some small appearances in this period may have been missed.
Also included in the data set is every public appearance that ran on C-SPAN or was posted on Rumble or YouTube, and every tweet and Truth Social post on Mr. Trump’s accounts, including over 300 deleted posts.
The authors searched this database for mentions of keywords related to abortion, then manually categorized individual quotations. Some statements were included in more than one category.
Abortion is an important issue
Politics
San Diego sues to stop border barrier construction
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The city of San Diego sued the federal government to stop the construction of razor wire fencing on city-owned land near the U.S.-Mexico border, accusing federal agencies of trespassing and causing environmental damage.
The city filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for Southern California on Monday. The complaint named Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth among the defendants.
The city accused the federal government of acting without legal authority when they entered city property in Marron Valley and began installing razor wire fencing.
“The City of San Diego will not allow federal agencies to disregard the law and damage City property,” said City Attorney Heather Ferbert in a news release. She said the lawsuit aims to protect sensitive habitats and ensure environmental commitments are upheld.
NEWSOM SUES TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OVER CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYMENT ORDER TO OREGON
San Diego is suing the federal government to stop the construction of razor wire fencing on city property in Marron Valley. (Justin Hamel/Bloomberg via Getty Images, File)
According to the lawsuit, federal personnel including U.S. Marines accessed the land without the city’s consent, and damaged environmentally sensitive areas protected under long-standing conservation agreements.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth were among the federal officials named in San Diego’s lawsuit. (Reuters/Brian Snyder; AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
San Diego argues the fencing has blocked the city’s ability to manage and assess its own property and could jeopardize compliance with environmental obligations.
An American flag can be seen through the barbed wire surrounding the CoreCivic Otay Mesa Detention Center on October 4, 2025 in San Diego, California. (Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The lawsuit also accuses the federal government of trespassing and beginning construction without proper authority or environmental review, and unconstitutionally taking the land in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Fox News Digital reached out to DHS and the Pentagon for comment.
Politics
Commentary: Tim Walz isn’t the only governor plagued by fraud. Newsom may be targeted next
Former vice presidential contender and current aw-shucks Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced this week that he won’t run for a third term, dogged by a scandal over child care funds that may or may not be going to fraudsters.
It’s a politically driven mess that not coincidentally focuses on a Black immigrant community, tying the real problem of scammers stealing government funds to the growing MAGA frenzy around an imaginary version of America that thrives on whiteness and Christianity.
Despite the ugliness of current racial politics in America, the fraud remains real, and not just in Minnesota. California has lost billions to cheats in the last few years, leaving our own governor, who also harbors D.C. dreams, vulnerable to the same sort of attack that has taken down Walz.
As we edge closer to the 2028 presidential election, Republicans and Democrats alike will probably come at Gavin Newsom with critiques of the state’s handling of COVID-19 funds, unemployment insurance and community college financial aid to name a few of the honeypots that have been successfully swiped by thieves during his tenure.
In fact, President Trump said as much on his social media barf-fest this week.
“California, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible??? The Fraud Investigation of California has begun,” he wrote.
Right-wing commentator Benny Johnson also said he’s conducting his own “investigation.” And Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is claiming his fraud tip line has turned up “(c)orruption, fraud and abuse on an epic scale.”
Just to bring home that this vulnerability is serious and bipartisan, Rep. Ro Khanna, the Silicon Valley congressman rumored to have his own interest in the Oval Office, is also circling the fraud feast like a vulture eyeing his next meal.
“I want to hear from residents in my district and across the state about waste, mismanagement, inefficiencies, or fraud that we must tackle,” Khanna wrote on social media.
Newsom’s spokesman Izzy Gardon questioned the validity of many fraud claims.
“In the actual world where adults govern,” Gardon said, “Gavin Newsom has been cleaning house. Since taking office, he’s blocked over $125 BILLION in fraud, arrested criminal parasites leaching off of taxpayers, and protected taxpayers from the exact kind of scam artists Trump celebrates, excuses, and pardons.”
What exactly are we talking about here? Well, it’s a pick-your-scandal type of thing. Even before the federal government dumped billions in aid into the states during the pandemic, California’s unemployment system was plagued by inefficiencies and yes, scammers. But when the world shut down and folks needed that government cash to survive, malfeasance skyrocketed.
Every thief with a half-baked plan — including CEOs, prisoners behind bars and overseas organized crime rackets — came for California’s cash, and seemingly got it. The sad part is these weren’t criminal geniuses. More often than not, they were low-level swindlers looking at a system full of holes because it was trying to do too much too fast.
In a matter of months, billions had been siphoned away. A state audit in 2021 found that at least $10 billion had been paid out on suspicious unemployment claims — never mind small business loans or other types of aid. An investigation by CalMatters in 2023 suggested the final figure may be up to triple that amount for unemployment. In truth, no one knows exactly how much was stolen — in California, or across the country.
It hasn’t entirely stopped. California is still paying out fraudulent unemployment claims at too high a rate, totaling up to $1.5 billion over the last few years — more than $500 million in 2024 alone, according to the state auditor.
But that’s not all. Enterprising thieves looked elsewhere when COVID-19 money largely dried up. Recently, that has been our community colleges, where millions in federal student aid has been lost to grifters who use bots to sign up for classes, receive government money to help with school, then disappear. Another CalMatters investigation using data obtained from a public records request found that up to 34% of community college applications in 2024 may have been false — though that number represents fraudulent admissions that were flagged and blocked, Gardon points out.
Still, community college fraud will probably be a bigger issue for Newsom because it’s fresher, and can be tied (albeit disingenuously) to immigrants and progressive policies.
California allows undocumented residents to enroll in community colleges, and it made those classes free — two terrific policies that have been exploited by the unscrupulous. For a while, community colleges didn’t do enough to ensure that students were real people, because they didn’t require enough proof of identity. This was in part to accommodate vulnerable students such as foster kids, homeless people and undocumented folks who lacked papers.
With no up-front costs for attempting to enroll, phonies threw thousands of identities at the system’s 116 schools, which were technologically unprepared for the assaults. These “ghost” students were often accepted and given grants and loans.
My former colleague Kaitlyn Huamani reported that in 2024, scammers stole roughly $8.4 million in federal financial aid and more than $2.7 million in state aid from our community colleges. That‘s a pittance compared with the tens of billions that was handed out in state and federal financial aid, but more than enough for a political fiasco.
As Walz would probably explain if nuanced policy conversations were still a thing, it’s both a fair and unfair criticism to blame these robberies on a governor alone — state government should be careful of its cash and aggressive in protecting it, and the buck stops with the governor, but crises and technology have collided to create opportunities for swindlers that frankly few governmental leaders, from the feds on down, have handled with any skill or luck.
The crooks have simply been smarter and faster than the rest of us to capitalize first on the pandemic, then on evolving technology including AI that makes scamming easier and scalable to levels our institutions were unprepared to handle.
Since being so roundly fleeced during the pandemic, multiple state and federal agencies have taken steps in combating fraud — including community colleges using their own AI tools to stop fake students before they get in.
And the state is holding thieves accountable. Newsom hired a former Trump-appointed federal prosecutor, McGregor Scott, to go after scam artists on unemployment. And other county, state and federal prosecutors have also dedicated resources to clawing back some of the lost money.
With the slow pace of our courts (burdened by their own aging technology), many of those cases are still ongoing or just winding up. For example, 24 L.A. County employees were charged in recent months with allegedly stealing more than $740,000 in unemployment benefits, which really is chump change in this whole mess.
Another California man recently pleaded guilty to allegedly cheating his way into $15.9 million in federal loans through the Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loan programs.
And in one of the most colorful schemes, four Californians with nicknames including “Red boy” and “Scooby” allegedly ran a scam that boosted nearly $250 million in federal tax refunds before three of them attempted to murder the fourth to keep him from ratting them out to the feds.
There are literally hundreds of cases across the country of pandemic fraud. And these schemes are just the tip of the cash-berg. Fraudsters are also targeting fire relief funds, food benefits — really, any pot of public money is fair game to them. And the truth is, the majority of that stolen money is gone for good.
So it’s hard to hear the numbers and not be shocked and angry, especially as the Golden State is faced with a budget shortfall that may be as much as $18 billion.
Whether you blame Newsom personally or not for all this fraud, it’s hard to be forgiving of so much public money being handed to scoundrels when our schools are in need, our healthcare in jeopardy and our bills on an upward trajectory.
The failure is going to stick to somebody, and it doesn’t take a criminal mastermind to figure out who it’s going to be.
Politics
Wyoming Supreme Court rules laws restricting abortion violate state constitution
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a pair of laws restricting abortion access violate the state constitution, including the country’s first explicit ban on abortion pills.
The court, in a 4-1 ruling, sided with the state’s only abortion clinic and others who had sued over the abortion bans passed since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, which returned the power to make laws on abortion back to the states.
Despite Wyoming being one of the most conservative states, the ruling handed down by justices who were all appointed by Republican governors upheld every previous lower court ruling that the abortion bans violated the state constitution.
Wellspring Health Access in Casper, the abortion access advocacy group Chelsea’s Fund and four women, including two obstetricians, argued that the laws violated a state constitutional amendment affirming that competent adults have the right to make their own health care decisions.
TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES
The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that a pair of laws restricting abortion access violate the state constitution. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Voters approved the constitutional amendment in 2012 in response to the federal Affordable Care Act, which is also known as Obamacare.
The justices in Wyoming found that the amendment was not written to apply to abortion but noted that it is not their job to “add words” to the state constitution.
“But lawmakers could ask Wyoming voters to consider a constitutional amendment that would more clearly address this issue,” the justices wrote.
Wellspring Health Access President Julie Burkhart said in a statement that the ruling upholds abortion as “essential health care” that should not be met with government interference.
“Our clinic will remain open and ready to provide compassionate reproductive health care, including abortions, and our patients in Wyoming will be able to obtain this care without having to travel out of state,” Burkhart said.
Wellspring Health Access opened as the only clinic in the state to offer surgical abortions in 2023, a year after a firebombing stopped construction and delayed its opening. A woman is serving a five-year prison sentence after she admitted to breaking in and lighting gasoline that she poured over the clinic floors.
Wellspring Health Access opened as the only clinic in the state to offer surgical abortions in 2023, a year after a firebombing stopped construction. (AP)
Attorneys representing the state had argued that abortion cannot violate the Wyoming constitution because it is not a form of health care.
Republican Gov. Mark Gordon expressed disappointment in the ruling and called on state lawmakers meeting later this winter to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion that residents could vote on this fall.
An amendment like that would require a two-thirds vote to be introduced as a nonbudget matter in the monthlong legislative session that will primarily address the state budget, although it would have significant support in the Republican-dominated legislature.
“This ruling may settle, for now, a legal question, but it does not settle the moral one, nor does it reflect where many Wyoming citizens stand, including myself. It is time for this issue to go before the people for a vote,” Gordon said in a statement.
APPEALS COURT SIDES WITH TRUMP ON BUDGET PROVISION CUTTING PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDS
Gov. Mark Gordon expressed disappointment in the ruling. (Getty Images)
One of the laws overturned by the state’s high court attempted to ban abortion, but with exceptions in cases where it is needed to protect a pregnant woman’s life or in cases of rape or incest. The other law would have made Wyoming the only state to explicitly ban abortion pills, although other states have implemented de facto bans on abortion medication by broadly restricting abortion.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Abortion has remained legal in the state since Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens blocked the bans while the lawsuit challenging the restrictions moved forward. Owens struck down the laws as unconstitutional in 2024.
Last year, Wyoming passed additional laws requiring abortion clinics to be licensed surgical centers and women to receive ultrasounds before having medication abortions. A judge in a separate lawsuit blocked those laws from taking effect while that case moves forward.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-
World1 week agoHamas builds new terror regime in Gaza, recruiting teens amid problematic election
-
News1 week agoFor those who help the poor, 2025 goes down as a year of chaos
-
Science1 week agoWe Asked for Environmental Fixes in Your State. You Sent In Thousands.
-
Business1 week agoA tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy
-
Politics1 week agoCommentary: America tried something new in 2025. It’s not going well
-
Detroit, MI4 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Politics1 week agoMarjorie Taylor Greene criticizes Trump’s meetings with Zelenskyy, Netanyahu: ‘Can we just do America?’
-
Health1 week agoRecord-breaking flu numbers reported in New York state, sparking warnings from officials