The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial expanded a recently imposed gag order to include family members of the court and family members of the Manhattan district attorney, according to a late Monday ruling.

This comes after Trump leveled comments against the judge’s daughter in recent days.

Earlier Monday, the Manhattan district attorney’s office had asked the judge to expand the gag order to stop the former president from attacking family members of people involved in the case.

“This Court should immediately make clear that defendant is prohibited from making or directing others to make public statements about family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order,” prosecutors wrote in a motion to Judge Juan Merchan on Monday.

Last week, soon after Merchan issued a gag order stopping Trump from making statements about witnesses, jurors, prosecutors, court staff or the family members of prosecutors and court staff, Trump launched a series of posts on his social media platform. The gag order did not cover District Attorney Alvin Bragg or the judge or his family.

Trump said Merchan was “compromised” and he identified by name the judge’s daughter who works for a political consulting firm. Trump then cited posts on X from an account he said belonged to the daughter. A spokesman for the court said the judge’s daughter deactivated her account two years ago and the posts were not from her.

Trump has argued he has a First Amendment right to defend himself and engage in campaign speech.

“Defendant knows what he is doing, and everyone else does too. And we all know exactly what defendant intends because he has said for decades that it is part of his life philosophy to go after his perceived opponents ‘as viciously and as violently’ as he can,” prosecutors wrote.

“But the suggestion that defendant is merely engaging in political counter-speech is an obvious fiction that this Court should emphatically reject,” prosecutors wrote. “None of defendant’s attacks in the past week consist of campaign advocacy. Instead, defendant has viciously and falsely smeared the Court and the family member for no reason other than the Court’s presiding over this criminal trial.”

Trump may appeal gag order

Trump’s lawyers oppose any expansion of the gag order that they say already goes too far and indicated they might appeal the order issued by Merchan last week.

“The Court should reject the People’s invitations to expand the gag order, which is already an unlawful prior restraint that improperly restricts campaign advocacy by the presumptive Republican nominee and leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in an opposition filing Monday.

Trump’s defense team says the gag order as it stands does not apply to family members of the judge or Bragg, pointing to news reports similarly interpreting the order to say that family members like Merchan’s daughter are fair game for Trump’s public criticisms.

“Accordingly, because the gag order expressly does not apply to family members of the Court or the District Attorney, and because the challenged social media posts were not intended to materially interfere with these proceedings, President Trump did not violate the gag order and no contempt warning would be appropriate.”

Trump’s lawyers also asked Merchan to allow them to file a recusal motion to remove the judge from the case, now just two weeks before the trial is set to begin, “based on changed circumstances and newly discovered evidence.”

Merchan denied a similar recusal motion from Trump last year.

This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Supreme Court on Monday paved the way for a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant, while also giving voters a chance to remove restrictions in November and restore abortion rights in most cases.

The court that was reshaped by former presidential candidate and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis ruled 6-1 to uphold the state’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, meaning a ban on six weeks could soon take effect. But under a separate ruling, the court allowed a ballot measure on abortions rights to go to voters.

Most abortions are obtained before the 15-week mark, so the current ban does not affect most people seeking abortion. But a six-week ban would likely have a major impact on women seeking abortions in Florida and throughout the South.

DeSantis, who signed the 15-week ban in 2022, appointed five of the court’s seven justices.

The lawsuit challenging the ban was brought by Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and others. They argued the Florida Constitution’s unique privacy clause for more than 40 years has explicitly protected a right to abortion in the state and should remain in force.

Lawyers for the state, however, said when the privacy clause was adopted by voter referendum in 1980, few people understood it would cover abortion. They told the justices the clause was mainly meant to cover “informational privacy” such as personal records and not abortion.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, most Republican-controlled states have adopted bans or restrictions on abortions. Every ban has faced a court challenge.

A survey of abortion providers conducted for the Society of Family Planning, which advocates for abortion access, found that Florida had the second-largest surge in the total number of abortions provided since Roe v. Wade was overturned. The state’s data shows that more than 7,700 women from other states received abortions in Florida in 2023.

The neighboring or nearby states of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi are among the 14 states with bans now in place on abortion in stages of pregnancy, with limited exceptions. Georgia and South Carolina bar it once cardiac activity can be detected, which is generally considered to be around six weeks into pregnancy.

Associated Press writers Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, N.J.; Terry Spencer in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Mike Schneider in Orlando; Curt Anderson in St. Petersburg; and David Fischer in Miami contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The video shared by former President Donald Trump features horror movie music and footage of migrants purportedly entering the U.S. from countries including Cameroon, Afghanistan and China. Shots of men with tattoos and videos of violent crime are set against close-ups of people waving and wrapping themselves in American flags.

“They’re coming by the thousands,” Trump says in the video, posted on his social media site. “We will secure our borders. And we will restore sovereignty.”

In his speeches and online posts, Trump has ramped up anti-immigrant rhetoric as he seeks the White House a third time, casting migrants as dangerous criminals “poisoning the blood” of America. Hitting the nation’s deepest fault lines of race and national identity, his messaging often relies on falsehoods about migration. But it resonates with many of his core supporters going back a decade, to when “build the wall” chants began to ring out at his rallies.

President Joe Biden and his allies discuss the border very differently. The Democrat portrays the situation as a policy dispute that Congress can fix and hits Republicans in Washington for backing away from a border security deal after facing criticism from Trump.

But in a potentially worrying sign for Biden, Trump’s message appears to be resonating with key elements of the Democratic coalition that Biden will need to win over this November.

Roughly two-thirds of Americans now disapprove of how Biden is handling border security, including about 4 in 10 Democrats, 55% of Black adults and 73% of Hispanic adults, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in March.

A recent Pew Research Center poll found that 45% of Americans described the situation as a crisis, while another 32% said it was a major problem.

Vetress Boyce, a Chicago-based racial justice activist, was among those who expressed frustration with Biden’s immigration policies and the city’s approach as it tries to shelter newly arriving migrants. She argued Democrats should be focusing on economic investment in Black communities, not newcomers.

“They’re sending us people who are starving, the same way Blacks are starving in this country. They’re sending us people who want to escape the conditions and come here for a better lifestyle when the ones here are suffering and have been suffering for over 100 years,” Boyce said. “That recipe is a mixture for disaster. It’s a disaster just waiting to happen.”

Gracie Martinez is a 52-year-old Hispanic small business owner from Eagle Pass, Texas, the border town that Trump visited in February when he and Biden made same-day trips to the state. Martinez said she once voted for former President Barack Obama and is still a Democrat, but now backs Trump — mainly because of the border.

“It’s horrible,” she said. “It’s tons and tons of people and they’re giving them medical and money, phones,” she said, complaining those who went through the legal immigration system are treated worse.

Priscilla Hesles, 55, a teacher who lives in Eagle Pass, Texas, described the current situation as “almost an overtaking” that had changed the town.

“We don’t know where they’re hiding. We don’t know where they’ve infiltrated into and where are they going to come out of,” said Hesles, who said she used to take an evening walk to a local church, but stopped after she was shaken by an encounter with a group of men she alleged were migrants.

Immigration will almost certainly be one of the central issues in November’s election, with both sides spending the next six months trying to paint the other as wrong on border security.

The White House has also mulled a series of executive actions that could drastically tighten immigration restrictions, effectively going around Congress after it failed to pass the bipartisan deal Biden endorsed.

“Trump is a fraud who is only out for himself,” said Biden campaign spokesman Kevin Munoz. “We will make sure voters know that this November.”

Trump will campaign Tuesday in Wisconsin and Michigan this week, where he is expected to again tear into Biden on immigration. His campaign said his event in the western Michigan city of Grand Rapids will focus on what it alleged was “Biden’s Border Bloodbath.”

The former president calls recent record-high arrests for southwest border crossings an “invasion” orchestrated by Democrats to transform America’s very makeup. Trump accuses Biden of purposely allowing criminals and potential terrorists to enter the country unchecked, going so far as to claim the president is engaged in a “conspiracy to overthrow the United States of America.”

He also casts migrants — many of them women and children escaping poverty and violence — as “ poisoning the blood ” of America with drugs and disease and claimed some are “not people.” Experts who study extremism warn against using dehumanizing language in describing migrants.

There is no evidence that foreign governments are emptying their jails or mental asylums as Trump says. And while conservative news coverage has been dominated by several high-profile and heinous crimes allegedly committed by people in the country illegally, the latest FBI statistics show overall violent crime in the U.S. dropped again last year, continuing a downward trend after a pandemic-era spike.

Studies have also found that people living in the country illegally are far less likely than native-born Americans to have been arrested for violent, drug and property crimes.

“Certainly the last several months have demonstrated a clear shift in political support,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of the immigrant resettlement group Global Refuge and a former Obama administration and State Department official.

“I think that relates to the rhetoric of the past several years,” she said, “and just this dynamic of being outmatched by a loud, extreme of xenophobic rhetoric that hasn’t been countered with reality and the facts on the ground.”

Part of what has made the border such a salient issue is that its impact is being felt far from the border.

Trump allies, most notably Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, have used state-funded buses to send more than 100,000 migrants to Democratic-led cities like New York, Denver and Chicago, where Democrats will hold this summer’s convention. While the program was initially dismissed as a publicity stunt, the influx has strained city budgets and left local leaders scrambling to provide emergency housing and medical care for new groups of migrants.

Local news coverage, meanwhile, has often been negative. Viewers have seen migrants blamed for everything from a string of gang-related New Jersey robberies to burglary rings targeting retail stores in suburban Philadelphia to measles cases in parts of Arizona and Illinois.

Abbott has deployed the Texas National Guard to the border, placed concertina wire along parts of the Rio Grande in defiance of U.S. Supreme Court orders, and has argued his state should be able to enforce its own immigration laws.

Some far-right internet sites have begun pointing to Abbott’s actions as the first salvo in a coming civil war. And Russia has also helped spread and amplify misleading and incendiary content about U.S. immigration and border security as part of its broader efforts to polarize Americans. A recent analysis by the firm Logically, which tracks Russian disinformation, found online influencers and social media accounts linked to the Kremlin have seized on the idea of a new civil war and efforts by states like Texas to secede from the union.

Amy Cooter, who directs research at the Center on Terrorism, Extremism and Counterterrorism at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, worries the current wave of civil war talk will only increase as the election nears. So far, it has generally been limited to far-right message boards. But immigration is enough of a concern generally that its political potency is intensified, Cooter said.

“Non-extremist Americans are worried about this, too,” she said. “It’s about culture and perceptions about who is an American.”

In the meantime, there are people like Rudy Menchaca, an Eagle Pass bar owner who also works for a company that imports Corona beer from Mexico and blamed the problems at the border for hurting business.

Menchaca is the kind of Hispanic voter Biden is counting on to back his reelection bid. The 27-year-old said he was never a fan of Trump’s rhetoric and how he portrayed Hispanics and Mexicans. “We’re not all like that,” he said.

But he also said he was warming to the idea of backing the former president because of the reality on the ground.

“I need those soldiers to be around if I have my business,” Menchaca said of Texas forces dispatched to the border. “The bad ones that come in could break in.”

Weissert reported from Washington. Associated Press writers David Klepper in Washington and Matt Brown in Chicago contributed to this report.

State Assembly

James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) voted on the following bills:

AB 2024, Domestic violence: restraining orders: Yes (Passed: 66-0)

ACR 160: Women in STEM Day: Yes (Passed: 54-0)

SCR 69, Prostate Cancer Awareness Month: Absent (Passed: 54-0)

AB 1797, State crustacean: Yes (Passed: 13-0)

AB 1850, State slug: Yes (Passed: 13-0)

AB 2298, Coastal resources: voluntary vessel speed reduction and sustainable shipping program: Yes (Passed: 13-0)

AB 2504, State seashell: Yes (Passed: 13-0)

AB 610, Fast food restaurant industry: Fast Food Council: health, safety, employment, and minimum wage: No (Passed: 57-5)

SB 136, Medi-Cal: managed care organization provider tax: No (Passed: 58-11)

AB 1880, Minors: artistic employment: Yes (Passed: 74-0)

AB 1887 Student financial aid: application deadlines: extension: Yes (Passed: 37-0)

AB 1916, Self-service storage facilities: abandoned personal property: Yes (Passed: 74-0)

AB 1982, Firearm safety certificate: exemptions: Yes (Passed: 74-0)

AB 2248, Contracts: sales of dogs and cats: Yes (Passed: 73-0)

State Senate

Brian Dahle (R-Bieber) voted on the following bills:

AB 1887, Student financial aid: application deadlines: extension: Yes (Passed: 37-0)

ACR 139, American Red Cross Month: Yes (Passed: 37-0)

ACR 143, School Breakfast Week: Yes (Passed: 37-0)

ACR 145, Coexist with Wildlife, California: Yes (Passed: 37-0)

SB 136, Medi-Cal: managed care organization provider tax: No (Passed: 29-3)

SCR 126, Nowroz: Yes (Passed: 37-0)

SR 69, Relative to César Chávez Day: Yes (Passed: 37-0)

SB 1036, Voluntary carbon offsets: business regulation: Absent (Passed: 5-0)

SB 1046, Organic waste reduction: program environmental impact report: green material composting operations: Absent (Passed: 6-0)

SB 1087, Oil imports: air quality emissions data: Absent (Passed: 6-0)

SB 1113, Beverage container recycling: pilot projects: extension: Absent (Passed: 6-0)

SB 1136, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: report: Absent (Passed: 6-0)

SB 1140, Enhanced infrastructure financing district: Absent (Passed: 6-0)

SB 1158, Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program: Absent (Passed: 5-0)

SB 1209, Local agency formation commission: indemnification: Absent (Passed: 6-0)

AB 136, Medi-Cal: managed care organization provider tax: No (Passed: 13-3)

SB 983, Energy: gasoline stations and alternative fuel infrastructure: Absent (Passed: 13-0)

SB 1003, Electrical corporations: wildfire mitigation plans: Yes (Passed: 17-0)

SB 1130, Electricity: Family Electric Rate Assistance: reports: Yes (Passed: 15-0)

SB 1177, Public utilities: women, minority, disabled veteran, and LGBT business enterprises: Absent (Passed: 14-0)

SB 1182, Master Plan for Healthy, Sustainable, and Climate-Resilient Schools: Yes (Passed: 17-0)

SB 1309, Lithium Battery Production Council: Absent (Passed: 15-1)

ACR 86, Animals: overpopulation: spay and neutering services: Yes (Passed: 40-0)

SCR 116, Frontotemporal Degeneration Awareness Week: Yes (Passed: 40-0)

SCR 121, International Women’s Day: Yes (Passed: 40-0)

SCR 123, Arts Education Month: Yes (Passed: 40-0)

SR 67, Relative to National Gambling Awareness Month: Yes (Passed: 40-0)

U.S. House of Representatives

Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) voted on the following bills:

HR 1023, Cutting Green Corruption and Taxes Act: Yes (Passed: 209-204)

HRes 1102, Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2024 Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2024 Department of Labor Appropriations Act, 2024 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024: Yes (Passed: 286-134)

HCRes 86, Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy: Yes (Passed: 222-196)

HR 1836, Ocean Shipping Reform Implementation Act of 2023: Yes (Passed: 393-24)

HR 7023, Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act: Yes (Failed: 99-323)

HRes 987, Denouncing the harmful, anti-American energy policies of the Biden administration, and for other purposes: Yes (Passed: 217-200)

HR 1121, Protecting American Energy Production Act: Yes (Passed: 229-188)

HR 7520, Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024: Yes (Passed: 414-0)

HRes 1085, Providing for consideration of the bill HR 1023 to repeal section 134 of the Clean Air Act, relating to the greenhouse gas reduction fund; providing for consideration of the bill HR 1121 to prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing; providing for consideration of the bill HR 6009 to require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw the proposed rule relating to fluid mineral leases and leasing process, and for other purposes; providing for consideration: Yes (Passed: 214-200)

HR 4723, Upholding the Dayton Peace Agreement Through Sanctions Act: Yes (Passed: 365-30)

HRes 149, Condemning the illegal abduction and forcible transfer of children from Ukraine to the Russian Federation: Yes (Passed: 390-9)

At the U.S. Supreme Court these days, judicial liberals don’t have much clout. The real fights mostly take place between the court’s far-right and its more traditional conservatives.

Tuesday’s argument over abortion pills provided a perfect example, and it highlighted the stakes the 2024 presidential election will have for the court. In particular, it illustrated one of the ways a second term for former President Trump could dramatically differ from his first, with huge consequences for abortion rights, among other topics.

Abortion endangers the GOP

The political backdrop to the high court’s argument is clear: The politics of abortion continue to bedevil Republicans.

The GOP achieved a long-standing goal in 2022 when the newly reinforced conservative majority on the court overturned Roe vs. Wade, the ruling that for nearly a half-century had guaranteed abortion rights nationwide. The court’s decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health tossed abortion policy back to the states, 15 of which now ban all or nearly all abortions, with six more imposing tight restrictions.

Those bans have not succeeded in reducing the number of abortions in the U.S., largely because of the wide availability of abortion pills. But they have generated a wave of anger among voters, especially women, that has sunk Republican candidates in swing districts and states.

The most recent example came a few hours after the high court argument, when a Democrat, Marilyn Lands, won a special election to fill a largely suburban state legislative district in northern Alabama. Lands had focused her campaign on reproductive rights.

Her landslide victory — a 25-point margin in a closely divided district — was the first test of voter sentiment since the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos created by in vitro fertilization should be considered children under state law, a decision that the state legislature hurriedly tried to overturn after furious voter reaction.

The conservative split

The lesson that many traditional conservatives have drawn from their election defeats is that the GOP should ease away from opposition on abortion. That may have influenced some of the Republican-appointed justices as they considered Tuesday’s challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s rules that allow widespread dispensing of mifepristone: They treated the case like an unwelcome guest — to be ushered out as rapidly as possible with a stern admonition not to return.

To the justices on the far right, it represented something else — a missed opportunity for now and a chance to set down markers for the future.

Representing the Biden administration, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar argued that the antiabortion group seeking to overturn the rules lacked standing to bring the case.

Standing refers to the legal principle that to challenge a law or rule, you have to be affected by it — you can’t just have a generalized grievance.

The antiabortion doctors who brought the case claimed they were affected because at some point, one of them might be in an emergency room when a woman who had taken mifepristone would show up seeking treatment for heavy bleeding, which is an occasional effect of the drug. If that happened, they would be forced to choose between their conscientious objections to abortion and their duty to care for a patient, they argued.

Prelogar said those claims “rest on a long chain of remote contingencies” that didn’t come “within a hundred miles” of establishing standing.

Even if the doctors had standing, the proper remedy for their claim would be to say that they could not be required to participate in an abortion — a right they already have under federal law, said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch agreed. The case was “a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an F.D.A. rule or any other federal government action,” he said. He didn’t mean that as a compliment.

Gorsuch, of course, was appointed to the court by Trump. Another Trump appointee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also appeared skeptical that the doctors had standing. The third Trump appointee, Justice Brett M. Kavanugh, said very little, but the one question he asked suggested that he, too, would likely side with the FDA.

How Trump could ban abortion pills

Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas were the only members of the court who seemed open to the arguments presented by Erin Hawley, the lawyer representing the antiabortion group.

In their questions, both also circled back to a related legal issue, the potential impact of an 1873 law known as the Comstock Act. That law, best known for banning “lewd” material from the mail, also bans any “article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use it or apply it for producing abortion.”

The law hasn’t been enforced in decades, but up through the 1930s, it was repeatedly used to prosecute people for mailing birth control devices or even medical texts about contraception.

In 2022, the Justice Department issued a formal ruling that the law wasn’t applicable to mifepristone because the drug has medical uses beyond abortion.

That ruling, however, could be reversed by a future administration. Antiabortion groups have made clear that if Trump wins another term, they’ll make the Comstock Act a high priority.

The Comstock law is “fairly broad, and it specifically covers drugs such as yours,” Thomas said at one point to Jessica Ellsworth, the lawyer representing Danco Laboratories, which makes mifepristone. His remark sounded like a warning.

Why two Bush justices, not Trump ones, make up the far right

The comments by Gorsuch and Barrett on the one side and Thomas and Alito on the other highlighted a paradoxical reality of the current court: The justices Trump named to the court aren’t the ones most likely to side with the MAGA movement’s priorities. Instead, the far-right members, Thomas and Alito, were appointed by two avatars of the pre-Trump GOP establishment — the Presidents Bush, father and son.

That doesn’t mean that the three Trump appointees are moderates. They’re solidly conservative. But they are establishment conservatives.

During Trump’s tenure, the process of picking and confirming Supreme Court justices was largely driven by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, working with Trump’s White House counsel, Don McGahn. Trump had relatively little to do with it beyond ratifying the ultimate selections.

McConnell and McGahn looked for justices in their ideological image, not Trump’s.

By contrast, George H.W. Bush chose Thomas without knowing much about him. He wanted a Black jurist to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall, and he didn’t have a lot of Black Republican judges to choose from. The full scope of the new justice’s ideology was unknown when he was named.

Alito was more of a known commodity when George W. Bush appointed him, but he wasn’t the president’s first choice. Bush had tried to put his counsel, Harriet Miers, on the court. But he had to withdraw Miers’ name after intense opposition from the right. The choice of Alito was an effort at political damage control.

But McConnell won’t be Senate Republican leader after this year — he’s already announced his plans to step down. And Trump isn’t likely to appoint anyone to the White House staff like McGahn, who repeatedly thwarted him on key issues.

Trump owes his political survival to the steadfast support of the right wing, especially conservative, evangelical Christians. Whatever constraints the former GOP establishment managed to impose on him before would be largely absent in a second term.

Hence the main lesson from Tuesday: The high court has moved sharply to the right already, but it could go a lot further if Trump gets another term.

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The nationwide poll conducted in mid-March by Florida Atlantic University found 73% of voters agree that “Democracy may have problems, but it is the best system of government,” including 50% who strongly agree. Just 13% disagree.

But the youngest group of voters, those from 18 to 35, felt much differently.

Slightly more than half — 53% — agreed it’s the best system of government. Just 15% strongly agree while a quarter — 25% — disagreed.

That’s a significant difference — a pro-democracy advantage among all voters of 60 percentage points, compared to just 28 points among younger voters.

The finding merits further study, and warrants concern, said Kevin Wagner, an FAU political scientist and authority on public opinion polling.

The FAU poll also found the views of the youngest group of voters are dramatically different than the oldest.

Among voters 65 and older, 89% agree (including 73% who strongly agree) and just 6% disagree with the pro-democracy statement. That’s an 83-point pro-democracy advantage.

“The distinction between younger voters and older voters is very stark,” Wagner said, adding it suggests that “among younger voters there is a loss of faith in the system and the process. That should cause us to ask why younger voters feel the democratic system is not working for them?”

Wagner said the thing that keeps jumping out to him from the poll results was the results among younger voters. “If that’s not concerning, we’re not paying attention.”

The youngest voters were also far more likely to express ambivalence when asked if they agree that democracy is the best system of government.

Among all voters, 14% said they didn’t agree or disagree.

Among those 18-34, 25% said they didn’t agree or disagree; among those 65 and older, just 4% didn’t feel either way.

Political differences

The poll results also revealed political differences in response to the democracy statement.

People who said they plan to vote for former President Donald Trump, the presumed Republican nominee, in November were 22 percentage points less likely to agree that democracy is the best system of government than people who said they plan to vote for President Joe Biden.

Among Biden voters, 85% agree democracy is the best form of government even though it may have problems, 6% disagree, and 10% don’t agree or disagree.

Among Trump voters, 63% agree, 18% disagree, 19% don’t agree or disagree.

That’s a 79-point pro-democracy advantage among Biden supporters and a 44-point advantage among Trump supporters.

When the question is examined by party affiliation of those surveyed — as opposed to those who’ve decided between Biden and Trump — the differences aren’t as pronounced.

Among Democrats: 79% agree, 8% disagree, and 13% don’t agree or disagree.

Among Republicans: 69% agree, 17% disagree, and 13% said neither.

Among independents: 67% agree, 15% disagree, and 19% said neither.

Wagner said the larger share of Republicans than Democrats who disagree may stem from Trump, who has “has suggested he thinks the system is not fair. And I think that’s reflected a bit in the Republican vote.”

Income, gender

There were some other demographic differences, but they weren’t nearly as significant as the difference between the youngest and oldest voters or among Biden and Trump voters.

People with higher incomes were more likely to agree that democracy is the best than people who earn less.

Among voters making $50,000 a year or less: 68% agree, 16% disagree, 17% don’t agree or disagree.

Among those making $100,000 or more: 82% agree, 12% disagree, 6% don’t agree or disagree.

The difference in outlook according to earnings isn’t surprising, Wagner said. “If you’re wealthy, it’s pretty easy to say the system is working for you.”

Polling often shows differences in outlooks between men and women. But the FAU poll didn’t find meaningful differences on the democracy question.

Among men: 77% agree with the democracy-is-best statement, 12% disagree, 11%  don’t agree or disagree.

Among women: 69% agree, 15% disagree, 17% don’t agree or disagree.

How well it works

FAU researchers asked a related question about “how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way democracy works in the United States?”

After years of claims by Trump and his supporters that the 2020 presidential election was rigged — an assertion for which repeated investigations have found no evidence — there are higher levels of dissatisfaction among the former president’s supporters.

A total of 46% of voters surveyed said they were satisfied with the way democracy works in the U.S.

Among people age 18-34, it was 36%; for 65 and older voters, 54%; Biden voters, 63%; Trump voters, 33%.

Among all voters, 39% said they were dissatisfied with the way democracy works in the U.S. Among those ages 18-34, 39%; 65 and older, 36%; Biden voters, 23%; Trump voters, 51%.

And 15% of all voters said they weren’t satisfied or dissatisfied. Among those ages 18-34, 25%; 65 and older, 11%; Biden voters, 14%; and Trump voters, 16%.

Takeaways

Overall, Wagner noted, there is still broad support for democracy.

“Most Americans do have faith in democracy, and I think considering all the negativity that we hear, that’s actually a pretty good finding,” Wagner said.

Even though “a good number of people are currently dissatisfied with how our government is operating,” Wagner said “people like democracy and maybe are a little more frustrated with how democracy operates in the United States.”

Wagner said too many people think that younger voters, if they turn out, will automatically vote for Democrats.

“Many people are missing the fact that younger voters are actually pretty upset about the state of our political universe,” and that could lead to some upended assumptions — including the possibility that their voting patterns may not line up with widespread expectations.

One result might be more support from younger voters or independent, third-party candidates, or for Trump, he said.

Fine print

The poll of 1,053 registered voters was conducted March 15-17 by Mainstreet Research for Florida Atlantic University’s PolCom Lab, which is a collaboration of the School of Communication and Multimedia Studies and Department of Political Science.

The survey used text messages to reach registered voters who responded to a link to complete the survey online and used automated phone calls to reach other voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full survey of Democrats, Republicans and independents. The margin of error for smaller groups, such as Republicans or Democrats, or men and women, is higher because the sample sizes are smaller.

Anthony Man can be reached at aman@sunsentinel.com and can be found @browardpolitics on Facebook, Threads.net and Post.news.

WASHINGTON — Vice President Kamala Harris looked up from prepared remarks in the White House’s ornate Roosevelt Room this month to make sure the reporters in the room could hear her clearly: “Nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed.”

Harris’ “marijuana reform roundtable” was a striking reminder of how the politics have shifted for a onetime prosecutor raised in the “Just Say No” era of zero-tolerance drug enforcement. As President Biden seeks badly needed support from young people, his administration is banking on cannabis policy as a potential draw.

Biden made similar comments to Harris’ in this month’s State of the Union address — though the 81-year-old president used the term “marijuana” instead of “weed.” The administration is highlighting its decision to grant clemency for pot possession as it races to have cannabis reclassified under the Controlled Substances Act before Biden faces voters in November.

“What’s good about this issue is it’s clean and it’s clear and it cuts through,” said Celinda Lake, one of Biden’s 2020 pollsters who also works for the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform, an industry group, along with Democratic organizations supporting Biden’s reelection. “And it’s hard to get voters’ attention in this cynical environment.”

The challenge is significant. Biden is viewed favorably by only 31% of people ages 18 through 29, much worse than he fares with other age groups, according to a recent Economist/YouGov poll. Though he leads former President Trump by 21 percentage points in that age group, he needs a high turnout to repeat his 2020 formula. Biden’s age probably has played a role in alienating a group that is both essential for Democrats and historically harder to galvanize than older voters, who more consistently show up at the polls.

What’s more, the biggest step Biden is taking is incremental and not in his full control. The president wants regulators to move marijuana from a Schedule I classification under the Controlled Substances Act — the most restrictive category of drugs that also includes heroin — to Schedule III, a still highly regulated group of drugs that includes anabolic steroids.

That decision is now under review by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which has historically resisted looser drug laws and usually taken many years to review such rule changes within the law, which has been in effect since 1971.

Even if the DEA agrees, it will not mean marijuana is legal at the national level, something that frustrates some cannabis advocates.

“In the year 2024, it’s fair to expect more from a Democratic president,” said Matthew Schweich, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, a nonprofit trying to loosen laws at the local, state and federal levels.

Schweich said he worries about Trump returning to office but believes Biden has done the “absolute bare minimum,” missing a political opportunity to push for legalization in Congress and to advocate for the complete removal of marijuana from the controlled substances list, which Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and 11 other Democratic senators urged in a January letter to the DEA.

Trump, whose administration threatened federal enforcement against localities and states that had legalized marijuana, is unlikely to attract support from legalization advocates.

Polling that Lake has done for the industry shows even the incremental step Biden is seeking could boost his approval by as much as 9 percentage points with younger voters in battleground states. But it’s hardly certain how that would play out.

A campaign aide, who would speak only on condition of anonymity, said marijuana policy is one of a number of issues the campaign believes will motivate young people — important but not as prominent as top-tier concerns including college affordability, reproductive rights, the economy, climate and healthcare.

The campaign cautions against treating young people as a monolith, noting that they care about a variety of issues and tend to see connections between them. Democrats, through a variety of methods including social media influencers and a newly launched campus outreach program, are trying to make the broader case to young people that Biden is fighting for equity and change while Trump is looking backward.

They note that young voters proved critical not only in Biden’s 2020 election but also in the 2022 midterm elections, when concerns over democracy and abortion rights helped the party perform better than expected.

The administration has pitched its marijuana agenda as part of its broader efforts to change other criminal sentencing laws and to improve job and business opportunities for people who have spent time in jail or prison.

Lake argues the two efforts combined could help Biden with Black men, another group where he has lost significant support since winning election in 2020.

Padilla said he still gets asked about marijuana regulations regularly, even though California was the first state to pass a medical-use law in 1996. “It resonates with a lot of people,” he said.

In practical terms, reclassifying marijuana changes little. Federal penalties would remain the same, though the Justice Department has for decades treated most marijuana crimes as low-priority prosecutions. It would remain illegal to transport pot across state lines, meaning access to banks and financial markets will remain a hurdle, even for companies operating in states that have legalized pot.

The biggest difference is that scientists and doctors could more easily study the drug for medical uses, something that is now practically banned. Such a change could open the door for greater acceptance. It also would lower tax burdens for the industry in states where it is legal, by allowing deductions for ordinary business expenses that are currently prohibited by the Internal Revenue Service.

Other potential changes are less certain. Banks and credit card issuers, for instance, would not immediately lift restrictions on marijuana transactions, though that could come if regulators in the Treasury Department decide to take up the issue, according to Shane Pennington, an attorney specializing in the Controlled Substances Act who has industry clients.

Biden proposed reviewing marijuana’s status in October 2022, a process that usually takes an average of more than nine years, Pennington said. The Department of Health and Human Services recommended Schedule III in August, the first step toward a change. A DEA spokesperson, in an email, said the agency would not discuss the issue while it is under review.

“It often takes a very long time, but we’re in unprecedented territory here” because the order came directly from the president, Pennington said.

Harris, in her roundtable discussion on marjuana reform, showed her impatience.

“I cannot emphasize enough that they need to get to it as quickly as possible, and we need to have a resolution based on their findings and their assessment,” she said.

The rushed nature of the process could expose the administration’s actions — which are almost certain to draw lawsuits — to further scrutiny.

Kevin A. Sabet, a former marijuana policy advisor in the Obama administration who heads an anti-legalization group, noted that Biden’s Health and Human Services Department released its preliminary recommendation at 4:20 p.m., slang for weed smoking time, underscoring the political nature of a normally button-down regulatory process. He argued that the decision was poorly crafted and could run afoul of U.S. treaty obligations.

But Sabet also agrees with advocates that Biden could have gone further.

“I think what the president wants to do is reap some of the benefits of the guy who’s embracing all this stuff without actually becoming in favor of legalization,” said Sabet, who heads the group Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

ATLANTA (AP) — The charges against Donald Trump in the Georgia election interference case seek to criminalize political speech and advocacy conduct that the First Amendment protects, a lawyer for the former president said Thursday as he argued that the indictment should be dismissed.

The hearing before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee was on a filing from Trump and on two pretrial motions by co-defendant David Shafer and centered on technical legal arguments. It marked something of a return to normalcy after the case was rocked by allegations that District Attorney Fani Willis improperly benefited from her romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor hired for the case.

“There is nothing alleged factually against President Trump that is not political speech,” Trump’s lead lawyer, Steve Sadow, told the judge. Sadow said a sitting president expressing concerns about an election is “the height of political speech” and that is protected even if what was said ended up being false.

Prosecutor Donald Wakeford countered that Trump’s statements are not protected by the First Amendment because they were integral to criminal activity.

“It’s not just that they were false. It’s not that the defendant has been hauled into a courtroom because the prosecution doesn’t like what he said,” Wakeford said, adding that Trump is free to express his opinion and make legitimate protests. “What he is not allowed to do is to employ his speech and his expression and his statements as part of a criminal conspiracy to violate Georgia’s RICO statute, to impersonate public officers, to file false documents, to make false statements to the government.”

Wakeford pointed out that similar arguments were raised and rejected in the federal election interference case against Trump brought by Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in a December ruling that “it is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime.”

“Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements … but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process,” Chutkan wrote.

Willis used Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, an expansive anti-racketeering statute, to charge Trump and 18 others with allegedly participating in a wide-ranging conspiracy to overturn the state’s 2020 election results.

Most of the charges against Shafer, a former state Republican Party chairman, have to do with his involvement in the casting of Electoral College votes for Trump by a group of Georgia Republicans even though the state’s election had been certified in favor of Democrat Joe Biden. The charges against Shafer include impersonating a public officer, forgery, false statements and writings, and attempting to file false documents.

His lawyer, Craig Gillen, argued that the activity Shafer engaged in was lawful at the time and that Schafer was acting in accordance with requirements of the Electoral Count Act. Because a legal challenge to the presidential election results was pending on Dec. 14, 2020, when it came time for electors to meet to cast Georgia’s electoral votes, Gillen said it was up to Congress to determine whether a Democratic or Republican slate of electors should be counted for the state. He said that means Shafer and the other Republicans who met to cast electoral votes were acting properly.

Gillen also asked that three phrases be struck from the indictment: “duly elected and qualified presidential electors,” “false Electoral College votes” and “lawful electoral votes.” He said those phrases are used to assert that the Democratic slate of electors was valid and the Republican slate was not. He said those are “prejudicial legal conclusions” about issues that should be decided by the judge or by the jury at trial.

Wooten opposed the move, saying “every allegation in an indictment is a legal conclusion.”

Trump and the others were indicted last year, accused of participating in a scheme to try to illegally overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia, which the Republican incumbent narrowly lost to Biden.

All the defendants were charged with violating the anti-racketeering law, along with other alleged crimes. Four people charged in the case have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump and the others have pleaded not guilty. No trial date has been set. Willis has asked that the trial begin in August.

The allegations that Willis engaged in an improper relationship were explored over several days in an evidentiary hearing last month that delved into intimate details of Willis’ and Wade’s personal lives. The judge rejected defense efforts to remove Willis and her office as long as Wade stepped aside. But McAfee did give the defendants permission to seek a review of his decision from the state Court of Appeals.

Also this month, the judge dismissed six of the 41 counts in the indictment, including three against Trump, finding that prosecutors failed to provide enough detail about the alleged crimes.

Facing increased threats to election workers and superheated political rhetoric from former President Donald Trump and his supporters, more states are considering firearm bans at polling places and ballot drop boxes ahead of November’s presidential election.

This month, New Mexico became the latest state to restrict guns where people vote or hand in ballots, joining at least 21 other states with similar laws — some banning either open or concealed carry but most banning both.

Nine of those prohibitions were enacted in the past two years, as states have sought to prevent voter intimidation or even violence at the polls driven by Trump’s false claims of election rigging. At least six states are debating bills that would ban firearms at polling places or expand existing bans to include more locations.

The New Mexico measure, which was supported entirely by Democrats, applies to within 100 feet of polling places and 50 feet of ballot drop boxes. People who violate the law are subject to a petty misdemeanor charge that could result in six months in jail.

“Our national climate is increasingly polarized,” said Democratic state Rep. Reena Szczepanski, one of the bill’s sponsors. “Anything we can do to turn the temperature down and allow for the safe operation of our very basic democratic right, voting, is critical.”

She told Stateline that she and her co-sponsors were inspired to introduce the legislation after concerned Santa Fe poll workers, who faced harassment by people openly carrying firearms during the 2020 presidential election, reached out to them.

The bill carved out an exception for people with concealed carry permits and members of law enforcement. Still, every Republican in the New Mexico legislature opposed the measure; many said they worried that gun owners might get charged with a crime for accidentally bringing their firearm to the polling place.

“We have a lot of real crime problems in this state,” said House Minority Floor Leader Ryan Lane, a Republican, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing last month. “It’s puzzling to me why we’re making this a priority.”

But over the past several years, national voting rights and gun violence prevention advocates have been sounding the alarm over increased threats around elections, pointing to ballooning disinformation, looser gun laws, record firearm sales and vigilantism at polling locations and ballot tabulation centers.

National surveys show that election officials have left the field in droves because of the threats they’re facing, and many who remain in their posts are concerned for their safety.

Add in aggressive rhetoric from Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and it becomes “a storm” that makes it essential for states to pass laws that prohibit guns at polling places, said Robyn Sanders, a Democracy Program counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, a voting rights group based at the New York University School of Law.

“Our democracy has come under new and unnerving pressure based on the emergence of the election denial movement, disinformation and false narratives about the integrity of our elections,” said Sanders, who co-authored a September report on how to protect elections from gun violence. The report was a partnership between the Brennan Center and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

“The presence of guns in these places presents a risk of violence,” she added.

Increased threat environment

Over the past four years, threats have gone beyond voicemails, emails or social media posts. Armed vigilantes have harassed voters at ballot drop boxes and shown up outside vote tabulation centers. Other people reportedly have shot at local election officials.

While several states have enacted laws in recent years criminalizing threats to election officials, some states want to take it a step further through gun restrictions.

This year, primarily Democratic lawmakers in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan Pennsylvania, Vermont and Virginia have introduced legislation that would ban most firearms in or near polling places or other election-related places. Most of these bills remain in committee.

Some of the states have seen political violence in recent years, including Pennsylvania, where a man tried to go into a Harrisburg polling place in November with a firearm and acted threateningly, confronting voters and pointing an unloaded gun at an unoccupied police cruiser.

A bill in Virginia to ban firearms at polling places got through the state legislature on a party-line vote this month, but Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin has not yet acted on the legislation. His press office did not respond to a request for more information.

Two Democratic-backed bills in Michigan seek to ban most firearms at or within 100 feet of polling places, and ballot drop boxes and clerks’ offices during the 40 days before an election. They have passed the state Senate but await votes in the House.

Democratic state Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou, the sponsor of one of those bills, told Stateline she expects the legislation to pass in April, after special elections fill two vacant seats.

“We want to make sure that we’re able to attract the needed election workers, and that they feel safe doing those jobs,” she said. “Sadly, we’re seeing more and more gun violence throughout our state and our nation. And I strongly believe that everyone should feel safe when they’re voting.”

But these bills are “good for headlines and nothing else,” said GOP state Sen. Jim Runestad in a statement on the Senate Republicans’ website.

“When one considers the sheer number of drop boxes placed throughout larger communities, like in the city of Detroit, these places could be nearly impossible to avoid,” he wrote, referring to gun owners.

One of his proposed amendments that failed would have exempted gun owners carrying guns for non-election-related business, such as going into a store near a ballot drop box.

In 2020, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson attempted to ban firearms within 100 feet of polling places, clerks’ offices and absentee ballot counting centers. But Michigan courts blocked her effort, finding she didn’t have the authority.

Michigan was one of many states where election officials faced violent threats during the 2020 presidential election. Last month, a man pleaded guilty to federal charges for threatening the life of former Rochester Hills Clerk Tina Barton, saying she deserved a “throat to the knife.”

There is broad bipartisan support among voters to ban firearms at polling places. According to a 2022 poll of more than 1,000 adults commissioned by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, nearly 80% of Democrats and more than half of Republicans and independents polled thought guns should be banned at polling places. Overall, 63% of adults surveyed supported a ban.

But that cross-party support has not translated to state legislatures.

Where are the bans?

Democratic-controlled states have spearheaded the effort to ban firearms at polling places in recent years, with only a handful of Republican lawmakers joining Democrats to pass the bills in some states.

In 2022, Colorado, New Jersey, New York and Washington state passed firearm restrictions at polling places. In 2023, California, Delaware, Hawaii and Maryland joined the list.

Nevada’s majority-Democratic legislature passed a similar ban last year, but Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed it. He said the measure would have infringed on the constitutional rights of Nevadans.

Maryland’s ban is facing a legal challenge from gun rights groups and activists who argue such bans infringe on Second Amendment protections and are ineffective.

“It’s a solution looking for a problem,” said Andi Turner, a spokesperson for the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, which is part of the lawsuit challenging the law. “We don’t have people threatening at polling places or going and shooting up election workers. I don’t see why this needs to be a thing.”

The states that had polling place firearm bans prior to the 2020 presidential election now have Republican-controlled legislatures: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas.

Georgia’s ban dates back to 1870, and in 1874 the state Supreme Court wrote that having a firearm at a polling place “is a thing so improper in itself, so shocking to all sense of propriety, so wholly useless and full of evil, that it would be strange if the framers of the constitution have used words broad enough to give it a constitutional guarantee.”

More Republican-led states should consider firearm prohibitions at polling places, said Jessie Ojeda, the guns and democracy attorney fellow at the Giffords Law Center, and one of the co-authors of the joint Brennan and Giffords report.

Gun safety advocates such as Ojeda see an opening for these laws, even after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that widened the definition of protected firearm access. While the court struck down New York’s law that prohibited firearms in public, it did leave open the potential for bans in “sensitive places,” specifically noting polling places.

“We need to take action before 2024,” said Ojeda. “We have a growing number of incidents when firearms are thankfully not being used to shoot people, but they are being used to intimidate and deter voters and election officials from doing their job.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a national nonprofit news organization focused on state policy.

©2024 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

BALTIMORE — The cargo ship that lost power and crashed into a bridge in Baltimore underwent “routine engine maintenance” in the port beforehand, the U.S. Coast Guard said Wednesday, as divers recovered the bodies of two of six workers who plunged into the water. The others were presumed dead, and officials said search efforts had been exhausted.

Investigators began collecting evidence from the cargo ship that struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The bodies of the two men, ages 35 and 26, were located by divers in the morning inside a red pickup submerged in about 25 feet (7.6 meters) of water near the bridge’s middle span, Col. Roland L. Butler Jr., superintendent of Maryland State Police, announced at an evening news conference.

The victims were from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, Butler said.

All search efforts have been exhausted, and based on sonar scans, authorities “firmly” believe the other vehicles with victims inside are encased in superstructures and concrete from the collapsed bridge, Butler said.

A coworker of the people missing said yesterday that he was told the workers were on break and sitting in their trucks parked on the bridge when it crumpled.

U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Shannon Gilreath said at a news conference that authorities had been informed that the ship was going to undergo the maintenance. He added that they were not informed of any problems.

The ship collided into a support pillar early Tuesday, causing the span to collapse. The bodies of two of six workers who plunged into the water were recovered earlier Wednesday.

The investigation picked up speed as the Baltimore region reeled from the sudden loss of a major transportation link that’s part of the highway loop around the city. The disaster also closed the port that is vital to the city’s shipping industry.

Officials with the National Transportation Safety Board boarded the ship and planned to recover information from its electronics and paperwork, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said.

The agency also is reviewing the voyage data recorder recovered by the Coast Guard and building a timeline of what led to the crash, which federal and state officials have said appeared to be an accident.

The ship’s crew issued a mayday call early Tuesday, saying they had lost power and the vessel’s steering system just minutes before striking one of the bridge’s columns.

At least eight people went into the water. Two were rescued, but the other six — part of a construction crew that was filling potholes on the bridge — were missing and presumed dead.

The debris complicated the search, according to a Homeland Security memo described to The Associated Press by a law enforcement official. The official was not authorized to discuss details of the document or the investigation and spoke to AP on condition of anonymity.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said the divers faced dangerous conditions.

“They are down there in darkness where they can literally see about a foot in front of them. They are trying to navigate mangled metal, and they’re also in a place it is now presumed that people have lost their lives,” he said Wednesday.

Among the missing were people from Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico, according to diplomats from those countries.

One worker, a 38-year-old man from Honduras who came to the U.S. nearly two decades ago, was described by his brother as entrepreneurial and hard-working. He started last fall with the company that was performing maintenance on the bridge.

Capt. Michael Burns Jr. of the Maritime Center for Responsible Energy said bringing a ship into or out of ports with limited room to maneuver is “one of the most technically challenging and demanding things that we do.”

There are “few things that are scarier than a loss of power in restricted waters,” he said. And when a ship loses propulsion and steering, “then it’s really at the mercy of the wind and the current.”

Video showed the ship moving at what Maryland’s governor said was about 9 mph (15 kph) toward the 1.6-mile (2.6-kilometer) bridge. Traffic was still crossing the span, and some vehicles appeared to escape with only seconds to spare. The crash caused the span to break and fall into the water within seconds.

The last-minute warning from the ship allowed police just enough time to stop traffic on the interstate highway. One officer parked sideways across the lanes and planned to drive onto the bridge to alert a construction crew once another officer arrived. But he did not get the chance as the powerless the vessel barrelled into the bridge.

Attention also turned to the container ship Dali and its past.

Synergy Marine Group, which manages the ship, said the impact happened while it was under the control of one or more pilots, who are local specialists who help guide vessels safely in and out of ports.

The ship, which was headed from Baltimore to Sri Lanka, is owned by Grace Ocean Private Ltd., and Danish shipping giant Maersk said it had chartered the vessel.

The vessel passed foreign port state inspections in June and September 2023. In the June 2023 inspection, a faulty monitor gauge for fuel pressure was rectified before the vessel departed the port, Singapore’s port authority said in a statement Wednesday.

The ship was traveling under a Singapore flag, and officials there said they will be conducting their own investigation in addition to supporting U.S. authorities.

The sudden loss of a highway that carries 30,000 vehicles a day, and the disruption of a vital shipping port, will affect not only thousands of dockworkers and commuters but also U.S. consumers who are likely to feel the impact of shipping delays.

“A lot of people don’t realize how important the port is just to everything,” said Cat Watson, who takes the bridge to work everyday and lives close enough that she was awakened by the collision. “We’re going to be feeling it for a very long time.”

The Port of Baltimore is a busy entry point along the East Coast for new vehicles made in Germany, Mexico, Japan and the United Kingdom, along with coal and farm equipment.

Ship traffic entering and leaving the port has been suspended indefinitely. Windward Maritime, a maritime risk-management company, said its data shows a large increase in ships that are waiting for a port to go to, with some anchored outside Baltimore or nearby Annapolis.

Speaking at a White House news conference, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the Biden administration was focused on reopening the port and rebuilding the bridge, but he avoided putting a timeline on those efforts. He noted that the original bridge took five years to complete.

Another priority is dealing with shipping issues, and Buttigieg planned to meet Thursday with supply chain officials.

From 1960 to 2015, there were 35 major bridge collapses worldwide due to ship or barge collisions, according to the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure.

Witte reported from Dundalk, Maryland. Associated Press journalists around the world contributed to this report, including Nathan Ellgren, Colleen Long, Sarah Brumfield, Rebecca Santana, Jake Offenhartz, Joshua Goodman, Ben Finley, Claudia Lauer, Juliet Linderman, Josh Boak, David McHugh, John Seewer, Michael Kunzelman, Mike Catalini and Sarah Rankin.