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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Politics
Trump has Christmas message to 'Radical Left Lunatics,' tells inmates Biden granted clemency to 'GO TO HELL!'
President-elect Trump dished out a fiery Christmas message on Wednesday in which he wished a “Merry Christmas” to “Radical Left Lunatics,” told the 37 prisoners whose death row sentences were recently commuted by President Biden to “GO TO HELL!,” and more.
“Merry Christmas to the Radical Left Lunatics, who are constantly trying to obstruct our Court System and our Elections, and are always going after the Great Citizens and Patriots of the United States but, in particular, their Political Opponent, ME. They know that their only chance of survival is getting pardons from a man who has absolutely no idea what he is doing,” Trump declared on Truth Social.
“Also, to the 37 most violent criminals, who killed, raped, and plundered like virtually no one before them, but were just given, incredibly, a pardon by Sleepy Joe Biden. I refuse to wish a Merry Christmas to those lucky “souls” but, instead, will say, GO TO HELL! We had the Greatest Election in the History of our Country, a bright light is now shining over the U.S.A. and, in 26 days, we will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. MERRY CHRISTMAS!” he added.
TRUMP AND BIDEN OFFER CHRISTMAS GREETINGS AS US APPROACHES TRANSFER OF POWER
Biden recently announced that he commuted the sentences of 37 prisoners on federal death row to life sentences without the potential for parole.
“Make no mistake: I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss,” the president said in a statement, but noted that he is “more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level.”
TRUMP PLEDGES TO BRING BACK FEDERAL EXECUTIONS AFTER BIDEN COMMUTES DEATH SENTENCES FOR 37 INMATES
In a separate post, Trump declared, “Merry Christmas to all, including to the wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal (where we lost 38,000 people in its building 110 years ago), always making certain that the United States puts in Billions of Dollars in ‘repair’ money, but will have absolutely nothing to say about ‘anything.’
He also discussed Canada, referring to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as the “Governor” of America’s northern neighbor, while suggesting that Canadian businesses would boom if the nation became a U.S. state.
TRUMP FLOATS NHL LEGEND WAYNE GRETZKY AS CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER AMID TRUDEAU TURMOIL
“Also, to Governor Justin Trudeau of Canada, whose Citizens’ Taxes are far too high, but if Canada was to become our 51st State, their Taxes would be cut by more than 60%, their businesses would immediately double in size, and they would be militarily protected like no other Country anywhere in the World. Likewise, to the people of Greenland, which is needed by the United States for National Security purposes and, who want the U.S. to be there, and we will!” Trump declared.
Politics
Opinion: How press freedoms could fare under the second Trump administration
With Donald Trump set to return to the White House next year, there’s much speculation on how his second administration will affect press freedom. The short answer is that we don’t know, but prognosticators do have the benefit of an important dataset: his first term.
And, if that record is any indication, national security “leaks” to the press may be an area of tension between journalists and the new leadership at the Justice Department. If there is a chilling effect on sources coming forward with newsworthy information in the public interest, Americans will be less informed and the American government will be held less accountable.
Things have been quiet on that front for the last four years, but the first Trump administration inherited and expanded the Obama administration’s aggressive pursuit of sources who disclosed government secrets to the press.
And President-elect Trump has often decried national security leaks and called for aggressively investigating and prosecuting them.
It would be foolish for press advocates to discount the possibility of a repeat of his first term, and perhaps an escalation.
There are several federal laws that can be read to criminalize the public disclosure of national security secrets. The most prominent is the Espionage Act of 1917, a World War I-era law that was initially used against domestic opponents of the war but applies to the act of communicating, delivering or transmitting “information relating to the national defense,” a broad term, to anyone not entitled to receive it.
In other words, if someone were to anonymously slip a manila envelope under a reporter’s door with government secrets — even secrets that the public has a clear interest in knowing, such as the warrantless domestic wiretapping by the George W. Bush administration — the Justice Department has consistently claimed the authority to investigate and prosecute the source, as well as the journalist, under the Espionage Act. There is no “public interest” defense.
Historically, it hasn’t been used that way. For about 90 years, the Espionage Act was deployed against actual spies, not journalists’ sources. There are a few exceptions — most prominently the Pentagon Papers case, in which the government launched a failed prosecution against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo — but source cases are in the single digits. And, while there were investigations involving journalists, no reporter or news outlet was ultimately prosecuted under the Espionage Act in that period.
The reason is simple. When the reporting is in the public interest, taking the leaker or journalist to court would be a “political firestorm,” as a federal appeals court judge put it in one of those few exceptions, a 1980s case involving a leak of classified photographs.
But the Bush and Obama administrations marked a shift in practice.
Under President George W. Bush, the Justice Department brought the first Espionage Act case other than Russo against individuals outside government, who had not sworn to protect government secrets. The Bush administration also featured the Valerie Plame case, which started as a leak investigation, in which Judith Miller of the New York Times spent 85 days in jail for refusing to identify a confidential source from her reporting about the run-up to the Iraq war. And the Bush Justice Department issued a subpoena in 2008 to force the New York Times’ James Risen to identify his source in another leak case, which the Obama administration pursued until 2015.
Then the Obama administration started to bring Espionage Act prosecutions against journalists’ sources in earnest. Depending on how you count, his administration brought 10 such cases. That is more than all other presidents combined.
Trump’s first term followed that trend. The Justice Department brought eight cases against journalist sources, including two under bank secrecy laws, as well as the Julian Assange case. The Assange case is complicated, but he was charged in part under the novel and dangerous legal theory that publishing secrets is a crime.
These cases can involve secret government demands for reporters’ notes; phone, email and text records; and correspondence with sources. That kind of snooping can reveal the constellation of a journalist’s sources beyond just the investigation in question and can give the government visibility into other stories the newsroom is investigating, including stories about the government. As Miller said when facing jail time: “If journalists cannot be trusted to keep confidences, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press.”
The Justice Department during Trump’s first term turbocharged Obama-era approaches. In addition to seizing years of records from reporter Ali Watkins’ phone and email providers, a Customs and Border Protection agent threatened to reveal private information unless she identified her sources. Watkins was a reporter at Politico at the time of the questioning and was at the New York Times when she learned of the records seizure.
Then, in the early days of the Biden administration, we learned that the Justice Department in the last days of the Trump administration had authorized demands for phone and email records for eight reporters at CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post in three separate leak investigations. It did so without notifying those outlets in advance — to give them a chance to negotiate or challenge the demands — and the CNN and New York Times demands came with a gag order preventing newsroom lawyers from even alerting the reporters that they had been targeted.
The history of leak investigations under Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump shows that the threat to the free flow of information is bipartisan and spans administrations. President Biden’s term has been a notable exception, but a reprise may be coming.
Gabe Rottman is the policy director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Politics
Trump picks Miami-Dade County Commissioner Kevin Marino Cabrera for Panama ambassador
President-elect Trump picked Miami-Dade County Commissioner Kevin Marino Cabrera to serve as ambassador to Panama.
Calling the Miami-Dade County Commissioner a “fierce fighter,” Trump said that he would advance the “MAGA agenda” to the Central American country.
“Kevin is a fierce fighter for America First principles. As a Miami-Dade County Commissioner, and Vice Chairman of the International Trade Consortium, he has been instrumental in driving Economic growth, and fostering International partnerships,” Trump wrote in the Wednesday announcement. “In 2020, Kevin did an incredible job as my Florida State Director and, this year, advanced our MAGA Agenda as a Member of the RNC Platform Committee.”
“Few understand Latin American politics as well as Kevin – He will do a FANTASTIC job representing our Nation’s interests in Panama!” he said.
GET TO KNOW DONALD TRUMP’S CABINET: WHO HAS THE PRESIDENT-ELECT PICKED SO FAR?
The announcement came after Trump said that Panama was “a Country that is ripping us off on the Panama Canal, far beyond their wildest dreams.”
In a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, Trump also accused Chinese soldiers of illegally operating the canal and “always making certain that the United States puts in Billions of Dollars in ‘repair’ money but will have absolutely nothing to say about ‘anything.’”
In a statement on X, Cabrera thanked Trump for the nomination.
HOW PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP COULD PULL OFF ‘THE DEAL OF THE CENTURY’ AS HE ENTERS OFFICE
“I’m humbled and honored by your nomination to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Panama,” he wrote. “Let’s get to work!”
Cabrera won his county election two years ago following an endorsement by Trump.
He also served as the Florida state director for Trump’s 2020 campaign and was a member of the RNC Platform Committee.
-
Technology5 days ago
Google’s counteroffer to the government trying to break it up is unbundling Android apps
-
News6 days ago
Novo Nordisk shares tumble as weight-loss drug trial data disappoints
-
Politics6 days ago
Illegal immigrant sexually abused child in the U.S. after being removed from the country five times
-
Entertainment1 week ago
'It's a little holiday gift': Inside the Weeknd's free Santa Monica show for his biggest fans
-
Lifestyle7 days ago
Think you can't dance? Get up and try these tips in our comic. We dare you!
-
Technology1 week ago
Fox News AI Newsletter: OpenAI responds to Elon Musk's lawsuit
-
Technology2 days ago
There’s a reason Metaphor: ReFantanzio’s battle music sounds as cool as it does
-
News3 days ago
France’s new premier selects Eric Lombard as finance minister