Florida’s Board of Education approved new rules for teaching Black history in the state Wednesday, prompting immediate backlash from critics who describe the updated standards as “a big step backward.” 

The new guidelines come after the state passed a controversial education law, which required lessons on race be taught in an “objective” manner that does not seek to “indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view.” The state also prohibited a pilot Advanced Placement high school course on African American studies in early 2023, saying it violated state law and “lacks educational value.” 

The updated standards on African American history instruction include “benchmark clarifications” to provide additional guidance to teachers on specific topics for instruction. One updated standard that has, in particular, come under fire directs teachers to include instruction on “how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

Another “benchmark clarification” under increased scrutiny directs teachers to include instruction on “acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans” when teaching about the growth and destruction of Black communities during Reconstruction and beyond. Among the examples listed as an act of violence was the 1920 Ocoee Massacre, when dozens of African Americans were killed when they went to vote. 

The Florida Education Association, the statewide teachers union, slammed these standards and others in a statement issued Wednesday as “a big step backward.”  

“The Florida State Board of Education today adopted new African American history standards. In doing so, they confirmed many of the worst fears educators had when the Stop Woke Act was signed into law last year,” the press release said, referring to the controversial education law. “These new standards are a disservice to Florida's students and are a big step backward for a state that has required teaching African American history since 1994.”

The president of the association, Andrew Spar, said in the press release, "How can our students ever be equipped for the future if they don't have a full, honest picture of where we’ve come from? Florida’s students deserve a world-class education that equips them to be successful adults who can help heal our nation's divisions rather than deepen them.”

“Gov. [Ron] DeSantis is pursuing a political agenda guaranteed to set good people against one another, and in the process he’s cheating our kids. They deserve the full truth of American history, the good and the bad,” he added.

The meeting Wednesday grew contentious, as many community leaders spoke and requested the board to table the proposed standards until they could be revised. Some of the new rules proposed were also aimed at LGBTQ students and educators. The standards were reportedly adopted, with no discussion.

State Sen. Geraldine Thompson (D) reportedly spoke at the meeting Wednesday. She helped pass a law requiring teachers to instruct about the Ocoee Massacre, which was listed among the “acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans,” in the updated standards.

Thompson reportedly said the new standards “suggests that the massacre was sparked by violence from African Americans. That’s blaming the victims.”

Department of Justice spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said the department is assessing the reports, which included claims of refusal of water to migrants as well as pushing them back into the Rio Grande to go back to Mexico.

The reports come from an email the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) shared with multiple media outlets including The Hill. The correspondence detailed a state trooper-medic's concerns from time working on the Eagle Pass portion of the border. He was there from late June into early July, according to reporting from CNN.

“The department is aware of the troubling reports, and we are working with DHS and other relevant agencies to assess the situation,” Hinojosa said.

The Texas DPS confirmed to The Hill Tuesday that the Texas Office of Inspector General (OIG) is investigating the reports.

“There is not a directive or policy that instructs Troopers to withhold water from migrants or push them back into the river,” Texas DPS told The Hill.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) released a joint statement with other high-ranking Texas officials stating that "no orders or directions have been given under Operation Lone Star that would compromise the lives of those attempting to cross the border illegally." Abbot created "Operation Lone Star" to "combat the smuggling of people and drugs into Texas. The operation began in 2021.

“The Texas Department of Public Safety and Texas Military Department continue taking steps to monitor migrants in distress, provide appropriate medical attention when needed, and encourage them to use one of the 29 international bridges along the Texas-Mexico Border where they can safely and legally cross,” the joint statement continued.

The video, which was posted to Telegram and reported by Reuters, appears to be the first time Prigozhin has been on camera since troops under his control marched on Moscow in a brief mutiny, which began on June 23 and ended less than 24 hours later.  

Prigozhin's voice welcomes Wagner troops, though the video was shot at night and only a profile of what appears to be Prigozhin can be seen along with a group of men. 

“Welcome lads. . . . Welcome to Belarusian soil,” he reportedly says in the film, which Reuters could not immediately verify as authentic.   

“We fought honourably,” Prigozhin said. “You have done a great deal for Russia. What is going on at the front is a disgrace that we do not need to get involved in.” 

Wagner troops had been heavily involved in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, including the effort to take the Ukrainian town of Bakhmut. But thousands of those soldiers apparently relinquishing their weapons to Moscow’s military and were given the option to go to Belarus after Prigozhin launched his doomed rebellion against the Kremlin last month.  

He and his forces ultimately halted their advance on Moscow, after Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko negotiated a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin.  

At the time, Prigozhin said the mutiny was in response to a contentious relationship with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov and not meant to unseat Putin. 

He was last seen leaving the Russian city of Rostov a day after starting the coup, but much is unknown as to where he is now after Putin called him a traitor. 

Also unclear is what is to become of Wagner’s 25,000 fighters. In the new video, Prigozhin says the fighters should prepare for a “new journey to Africa.” 

“And perhaps we will return to the [special military operation in Ukraine] at some point, when we are sure that we will not be forced to shame ourselves,” Prigozhin said, referring to the war in Ukraine. 

Wagner already has a robust presence in Africa, including in the Central African Republic and Mali, where the group is often hired as a private security contractor to supplement weak armies and eventually gains a foothold in the economy for exploitation. It has also been accused of heinous atrocities against civilians. 

The Biden administration in January designated Wagner as a Transnational Criminal Organization as part of efforts to identify and cut off parts of its global support network. 

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), have teamed up to put forward the proposal, geared at preventing the use of crypto assets in illicit financial transactions, in an amendment to annual legislation the that sets the budget for the nation’s armed forces.

The amendment would “require regulators to set examination standards for financial institutions engaged in crypto asset activities and require the Treasury Department to give recommendations to Congress regarding crypto asset mixers and anonymity-enhancing crypto assets,” according to Gillibrand's office.

“Prohibiting the use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering and illicit finance is critical to both our national security and economy. This amendment will require federal regulators to enact strong examination standards that will help prevent the utilization of cryptocurrencies in illegal activities,” Gillibrand said in a release. 

The Senate began considering the annual national defense policy package on Tuesday following the House’s approval of the must-pass legislation last week. Conservative Republican lawmakers in the House added several amendments, leading to an unusually partisan vote.

The proposed amendment on cryptocurrency was developed from a bill Lummis and Gillibrand reintroduced earlier this month that’s aimed at creating a regulatory framework for crypto assets — as well as from a bill by Warren and Marshall introduced last year to extend anti-money laundering to cryptocurrency.

Lummis and Gillibrand have been seen as more supportive of the crypto sector, while Warren and Marshall have been more critical of the quickly growing industry, pushing to expand the government's regulatory power over crypto.

Marshall said in a statement that the newly proposed bipartisan amendment to the NDAA “will set commonsense standards to ensure that proper guardrails are in place as crypto use continues [to] grow across the world.”  

Tuberville is holding up approval of senior military officials in protest of a Pentagon policy that reimburses travel costs for service members who must go across state lines to seek an abortion.

The White House and Democrats have slammed Tuberville for the hold, which they say is damaging military readiness. But the Biden administration's public shaming, combined with efforts to directly engage with Tuberville, have so far been fruitless.

The senator said defense officials on Wednesday could not explain how the abortion policy helped military readiness, or define the parameters around when the Pentagon would allow service members or their dependents to receive the procedure.   

“They didn’t explain it very well," he said. "They had no clue about readiness. They had no clue what month they’d do an abortion. We asked them eight or nine months — well they didn’t know.” 

He said he had gone into the meeting with “open mind, to be convinced that this is affecting readiness, and they gave a poor answer – [it’s] affecting recruiting, very poor answer on that.” 

Tuberville since March has held firm on blocking some 300 military promotions over the policy, which was established after the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade last year.  

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has called the senator three times — including once in March, once last week, and again on Tuesday — in an effort to get him to loosen his grip. 

Austin explained to Tuberville “that his blanket holds were increasingly harming U.S. military readiness and national security at a critical geopolitical moment,” a Pentagon official told The Hill. 

Tuberville earlier suggested that he could be convinced to drop his hold should the Senate vote on an amendment to curtail the Pentagon policy in its annual defense policy bill, which lawmakers hope to pass before August. 

The House's version of the $886 billion National Defense Authorization Act, which narrowly passed on Friday, included a provision that would end the policy. 

GOP senators have offered up similar proposals for the upper chamber's NDAA — which it will begin to debate this week — but if included, the amendment would hamper the likelihood the bill passes the Democrat-controlled Senate. 

Tuberville was not the only senator who left Wednesday's briefing unmoved. Armed Services ranking member Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) also complained that the Defense officials failed to give data on how abortion access affects enlistment and readiness. 

“Officials from the Department of Defense could not supply that information, which clearly indicates that this policy was entered into for political reasons and not based on the facts, not based on data,” Wicker told reporters. “So I’m very disappointed, though not surprised, at what we are learning today.” 

But Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed (D-R.I) offered a far different take of the briefing, saying that after today “there can be no doubt in my colleagues’ minds about the legality of the Department’s policy. I am even more convinced of the necessity and appropriateness of this policy, which is critical for the health of our military women, men, and their families.” 

He added: “The Defense Department laid out clear, plain facts to the committee. The Department of Justice has examined the Pentagon’s policy and found it to be entirely legal, consistent with 40 years of precedent through both Republican and Democratic administrations."

And Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) told The Hill that the presentation was “very thorough and answered a lot of questions.” 

King noted that only four to five Republican senators attended the briefing.  

Al Weaver contributed.

In a new Quinnipiac poll, 51 percent of respondents said they don't approve of Biden’s decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine, while 39 percent said they approve of his decision. 

The question posed to respondents stated that Biden made the decision “despite concerns from human rights groups that they endanger civilians,” before asking respondents whether they approve or disapprove. 

More Democrats than Republicans said they approve of Biden’s decision – with Democratic approval at 52 percent, and GOP approval at 30 percent. Republicans were more likely to disapprove of the decision — with 64 percent of Republican respondents saying they disapproved of the decision and 36 percent of Democratic respondents saying they disapproved of Biden's choice.

Cluster munitions are highly controversial weapons containing multiple bomblets that disperse over a wide area, making them effective at targeting formations of enemy armies and tanks, but also posing a risk to civilians. 

Ukraine has long asked for cluster munitions, which are banned by more than 100 countries – though not by the United States, Ukraine, nor Russia. 

Biden announced what he called a “difficult” but “necessary” decision earlier this month to send Ukraine cluster munitions. Ukraine recently launched a counteroffensive against Russia to take back its land, but U.S. and Ukrainian officials have said troops are using up artillery munitions at a rapid pace. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the cluster bombs are critical to defeating Russia in the counteroffensive.

The same Quinnipiac survey found 64 percent of Americans thought supporting Ukraine was in the United States’ best interest, while 29 percent said they did not. One third of Americans said they think the United States was doing too much to help Ukraine, 18 percent said they think the U.S. is doing too little to help, and 41 percent said the U.S. was doing the right amount, the same poll indicated.

The poll surveyed 2,056 U.S. adults from July 13 to July 17. It had a margin of error of +/- 2.2 percentage points. The surveys are based on random samples of adults using “random digit dialing” to conduct live interviews by landlines and cell phones.

The program, which will be administered jointly by the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency and the Department of Social Services, will include case review services, legal advice and representation by an attorney, according to the governor’s office.

“Farmworkers are the backbone of our economy and we won’t stand by as bad actors use the threat of deportation as a form of exploitation,” Newsom said in a statement.

“In the absence of Congress modernizing our broken, outdated immigration system, California continues our efforts to support immigrant families,” the governor added.

Legal services will be available to farmworkers whose cases are under review in the Department of Industrial Relations’s Labor Commissioner’s Office, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health or the Agricultural Relations Board, per the terms of the program.

The pilot will focus on supporting the enforcement of labor rights, particularly during worksite-wide investigations, and will not be limited based on an individual’s immigration status, the terms stressed.  

About half of California’s farmworkers are undocumented. Fears of retaliation from employers — such as threats of deportation — are common reasons why many individuals do not submit labor claims, the governor’s office noted.

“Prosecutorial discretion ensures that farmworkers will be empowered to enforce their labor rights and stand up against the abuse and exploitation they often face,” Diana Tellefson Torres, CEO of the United Farm Workers Foundation, said in a statement.

“It is of utmost importance that undocumented workers have access to free and low-cost legal services, so that any farmworker who has experienced workplace violations can come forward knowing they are protected from deportation,” Tellefson Torres added.

In a speech to a joint meeting of Congress marking Israel’s 75th anniversary, Herzog called Israeli protests against Netanyahu and his government “painful, and deeply unnerving, because it highlights the cracks within the whole.” 

President Biden has urged Netanyahu to work with Herzog to reach an agreement with the political opposition to abandon some of the most controversial measures of the government’s judicial overhaul plan, which critics say would neuter the country’s Supreme Court and undermine its democracy. 

“As head of state, I will continue doing everything to reach a broad public consensus, and to preserve, protect and defend the state of Israel’s democracy,” Herzog said to lawmakers.

Herzog’s visit to Washington, and his address to Congress, served as an attempt by the Biden administration to bridge the divides in his party — reinforcing Democratic support for Israel without legitimizing Netanyahu’s controversial government. 

Biden spoke with Netanyahu Monday as the Israeli president arrived in Washington and agreed to meet in the fall in the United States, but has not yet extended an explicit invitation to the White House.

Democratic divisions were apparent Wednesday, when at least seven progressives skipped the Israeli president’s speech. They included Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.). 

Some of those lawmakers have denounced Israel as an apartheid state and condemned Netanyahu’s government as racist — critical of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, its settlement activity in the West Bank and saying that the judicial overhaul will worsen the situation. 

Herzog addressed those statements head-on.

“I am not oblivious to criticism among friends, including some expressed by respected members of this House,” he said, adding that while he respects the criticism, “One does not always have to accept it,” which elicited laughs and claps in the chamber.

His remarks came one day after the House overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming that Israel “is not a racist or apartheid state” and that the U.S. “will always be a staunch partner and supporter of Israel,” while also condemning xenophobia and antisemitism.

The final vote was 412-9-1, with all opposition coming from progressive Democrats — some of whom boycotted Wednesday’s speech.

The resolution was drawn up in reaction to remarks by Jayapal, the chair of the Progressive Caucus, who, during a progressive conference in Chicago over the weekend, said that “Israel is a racist state.” 

The comment drew vocal bipartisan criticism, and Jayapal later apologized, walked back her remarks and focused her criticism on the Netanyahu government.

Jayapal did not attend Herzog’s speech, with a Democratic aide saying in a statement that her absence was due to “scheduling conflicts.” She did, however, support the resolution Tuesday.

One of the loudest applause lines came when Herzog warned that criticism of Israel should not “cross the line into negation of the state of Israel’s right to exist.”

“Questioning the Jewish people’s right to self-determination is not legitimate diplomacy, it is antisemitism,” he added.

While Herzog’s roughly 40-minute remarks were overwhelmingly celebrated by both sides of the chamber, some Republicans stayed seated while other lawmakers stood to applaud the Israeli president describing Israel as hosting “the largest and most impressive LGBTQ pride parades.” 

Still, the chamber was filled with lawmakers proclaiming support for Israel — with the U.S. and Israel working closely together to counter threats from Iran and its nuclear ambitions and to advance efforts to establish ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia. 

“Israel thanks the United States for working towards establishing peaceful relations between Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a leading nation in the region and in the Muslim world,” Herzog said.

“We pray for this moment to come. This would be a huge sea change in the course of history in the Middle East and the world at large.”

The remark received an overwhelming bipartisan standing ovation. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the ranking member on the Judiciary committee who is Jewish, held up Israel’s flag during the Israeli president’s remarks.

Herzog said that his deepest “yearning … is for Israel to one day make peace with our Palestinian neighbors” — comments that drew a bipartisan standing ovation — but called out Palestinian attacks against Israelis as undermining possibilities for a future peace. 

“Notwithstanding the deep political differences, and the numerous challenges that surround Israeli-Palestinian relations — and I do not ignore them — but it should be clear that one cannot talk about peace while condoning or legitimizing terror, implicitly or explicitly. True peace cannot be anchored in violence,” he said. 

Herzog thanked the U.S. for its “commitment to Israel’s security,” but noted that the relationship is a “two-way alliance, in which Israel has been making critical contributions to the national security and interests of the United States in numerous ways.” 

To date, the U.S. has provided $158 billion in bilateral assistance and missile defense, according to the Congressional Research Service, although that number is not adjusted for inflation. 

The Obama administration negotiated two 10-year agreements that provided Israel $30 billion through 2018, and $33.8 billion between 2019 and 2028. 

In 2021, Congress appropriated an additional $1 billion to restock Israel’s missile defense system, Iron Dome, but that was largely delayed over opposition from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Herzog is only the second Israeli president to address Congress. His father, Chaim Herzog, marked Israel’s 40th anniversary with a joint speech to Congress in 1987. 

He called it “the honor of a lifetime” to follow in his father’s footsteps, and he paid notice to his other deep family roots in his speech, referencing how his grandfather, the chief rabbi of the newly established state of Israel, met with then-President Truman in the White House in 1949. 

The president’s brother, Michael Herzog, is Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S.

“To us, it is clear that America is irreplaceable to Israel, and Israel is irreplaceable to America. It is time to design the next stage of our evolving friendship and our growing partnership together,” Herzog said in his speech. 

“Israel and the United States will inevitably disagree on many matters. But we will always remain family.”

The memo from an HHS official said the facility has repeatedly refused to provide documents and answer questions from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) about safety and security. HHS also told the lab it’s seeking to cut off funding permanently.

The memo, dated Monday, was first reported by Bloomberg.

The Wuhan Institute “likely violated protocols of the NIH regarding biosafety is undisputed,” wrote the official, whose name was redacted. "As such, there is risk that WIV not only previously violated, but is currently violating, and will continue to violate, protocols of the NIH on biosafety."

The institute, which has not received any federal money since 2020, now has 30 days to respond to the notice. 

“Therefore, I have determined that the immediate suspension of WIV is necessary to mitigate any potential public health risk,” the HHS official wrote. 

The document was made public by the House Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, which has been probing the administration's grants to the Wuhan Institute. Republican members of the panel have insisted the virus was manufactured in the Chinese facility with the aid of U.S. funding and spread worldwide because of a lab leak.

Much of the attention has been focused on EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based organization that received a 2014 grant from NIH that was partly sub-granted to the Wuhan Institute.

The U.S. intelligence community has yet to reach a conclusion about where the virus originated. At the same time, China has blocked international scientists from exploring all possibilities about the virus's origin.

NIH officials have asserted that no taxpayer funds were used for research that could have supercharged a coronavirus and caused the pandemic, but they have also admitted they don't know the full extent of research being conducted in Wuhan.

Russia and summit host South Africa reached a “mutual agreement” that Putin would not attend the Aug. 22-24 gathering, which brings together a bloc of developing economies known as BRICS, though he was initially invited, the office of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said.

The development could be viewed as embarrassing for Putin, who is now expected to be the only leader of a country in the bloc not to attend.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday that Putin “has decided to take part” in the summit via video link, without confirming if he had intended to attend the summit.

It ended months of speculation over whether Putin would travel to South Africa, which is a signatory to the Rome treaty that formed the International Criminal Court and therefore has the obligation to arrest the Russian leader if he sets foot on South African territory.

South Africa had given strong hints that it would not arrest Putin if he attended but had also been lobbying for him not to come to avoid the problem.

South Africa said as recently as last week that the Russian leader had been determined to attend, perhaps as a way to challenge the ICC warrant, which Moscow has dismissed.

Moscow has showcased the BRICS alliance as an alternative to the West’s global dominance, but this year's meeting has proved awkward for Putin following the ICC's move in March to indict him for war crimes relating to the abduction of children from Ukraine.

Although Moscow dismissed the warrant, Putin has not traveled to a country that is a signatory to the ICC treaty since his indictment. Analysts have said that the public debate about whether the Russian leader would or would not travel to South Africa was in itself an unwelcome development for the Kremlin.

The South African government has strong political ties with Russia, but Putin's attendance would have exposed it to possible diplomatic and legal repercussions.

South Africa's main opposition party has recently taken the government to court in an attempt to compel it to arrest Putin should he travel to the country. The ICC treaty has also became part of South African domestic law, meaning the government could be taken to court in South Africa if it failed to honor its commitment to the international court.

Ramaphosa spoke with Putin by telephone this weekend and held more “consultations" with BRICS officials on Tuesday, Ramapohosa's office said in a statement. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov would attend the BRICS summit in person to represent Russia, Ramaphosa's office said.

Meanwhile, the leaders of all the other BRICS nations, including China's Xi Jinping, would attend the summit, Ramaphosa's office said.

Wednesday's announcement comes a day after a court document was made public in which Ramaphosa said that any attempt by South Africa to arrest Putin would be viewed as a "declaration of war" by Russia. The affidavit made by Ramaphosa was part of the government's response to the court challenge brought by the country's main opposition party to compel it to arrest Putin.

“I must highlight, for the sake of transparency, that South Africa has obvious problems with executing a request to arrest and surrender President Putin,” Ramaphosa said in the affidavit. “Russia has made it clear that arresting its sitting president would be a declaration of war."

However, Kremlin spokesman Peskov denied that.

“No one has indicated anything to anyone," Peskov said. “In this world, it is absolutely clear to everyone what an attempt to encroach on the head of the Russian state means. So there is no need to explain anything to anyone here.”

___

AP writers Dasha Litvinova in Tallinn, Estonia, and Mogomotsi Magome in Johannesburg contributed to this story.

___

AP Africa news: https://apnews.com/hub/africa

The deadline, which would have been this week, has been pushed to Oct. 18, and the companies are still facing hurdles by U.K. regulators to approve the deal.

As part of the extension, there will be a higher termination fee and new commercial arrangements, according to Activision.

“The recent decision in the U.S. and approvals in 40 countries all validate that the deal is good for competition, players, and the future of gaming," an Activision Blizzard spokesperson said in a statement.

"Given global regulatory approvals and the companies’ confidence that CMA now recognizes there are remedies available to meet their concerns in the UK, the Activision Blizzard and Microsoft boards of directors have authorized the companies not to terminate the deal until after October 18," the spokesperson added, referring to The U.K.'s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). "We’re confident in our next steps and that our deal will quickly close.”

Phil Spencer, head of Xbox, confirmed the extension and the company’s intent to go forward with the acquisition. 

“We're optimistic about getting this done, and excited about bringing more games to more players everywhere,” Spencer tweeted. 

A British judge had conditionally approved a joint request from Microsoft and regulators from the CMA to delay an appeal set in motion after the agency initially rejected the deal.

The agency later pushed back its final decision so it can consider the company’s argument that new developments should change the equation.

CMA announced in April that it blocked Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision, citing concerns that the potential merger could harm the future of cloud gaming. The agency announced in September it would launch a probe into the $68.7 billion deal to acquire the makers of the popular “Call of Duty” franchise. 

The deal has already gained the approval of the European Union and a slew of other countries.

The Associated Press contributed.

Updated at 10:11 a.m.

The nation is baking in a record heat wave that is serving as a reminder of how climate change is rapidly affecting human life — from endangering outdoor workers to raising existential questions about communities at sea level.    

Yet when it comes to the GOP presidential field, climate change is mostly shrugged off.    

None of the 11 major candidates for president is offering significant warnings about the issue. 

Most have acknowledged the existence of human-caused climate change, and some have taken action to combat it while holding lower offices. 

But most of the candidates are putting more of an emphasis on drilling for oil and natural gas than on taking steps to control emissions.  

None of them has a dedicated climate change subsection on the issues page of their campaign website — although biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy’s economic plan includes the bullet point “abandon the climate cult and unshackle nuclear energy” — and none of the candidates with a dedicated page for energy policy advocates scaling back fossil fuel development. 

Playing down the threat 

Former President Trump, the front-runner for the GOP nomination, stands out from the rest of the Republican field on the issue for his active minimization of the threat of climate change.

Trump, who withdrew the United States from the Paris climate accords under which countries promised to lower emissions, has in the past acknowledged humans have played some role in changing the climate. However, he has repeatedly played down the dangers, including by misrepresenting the threat of rising sea levels and claiming without any scientific basis that climate change will reverse itself. 

Trump has vowed to aggressively expand domestic fossil fuel production and “ensure the United States is never again at the mercy of a foreign supplier of energy.”    

His campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story.   

In addition to withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement — which President Biden reentered in 2021 — Trump also staffed his former administration with climate change skeptics, including former Environmental Protection Agency Administrators Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler, and unwound more than 100 existing environmental regulations while in office.  

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is behind Trump in the polls but widely seen as the second-leading candidate in the GOP field, has also minimized climate change as an issue. 

He governs a state that is on the front lines of climate change. Miami this week suffered from a historically high heat index, and it and other seaside communities face an existential threat if seas continue to rise because of climate change. 

As governor, DeSantis has taken some action to build resilience to rising sea levels in the state, creating the position of chief resilience officer and allocating hundreds of millions of dollars for flood adaptation efforts, but he has been dismissive of efforts to actively cut greenhouse gas emissions. 

More on Energy & Environment from The Hill

• The world is burning from a record heat wave. GOP presidential candidates are shrugging
• ‘Massive emissions ramifications’: Forthcoming hydrogen policy stirs intense debate
• Biden approves additional aid to Vermont after severe storms, flooding
• UN agency warns of heart attack, death risk from heat wave

In 2021, the governor, speaking in Pinellas County, claimed climate change is frequently invoked to advance liberal priorities, saying “we’re not going to do any left-wing stuff.” 

Like DeSantis, Ramaswamy has stopped short of denying climate change but has largely discussed it in the language of the culture war rather than that of economics or policy. 

Ramaswamy, who has polled in the mid-single digits in the primary, largely built his national profile on opposition to environmental and sustainable governance (ESG), the practice of weighing environmental and climate issues, among others, in investment and financial decisions that has attracted increasing opposition from Republicans, including DeSantis.  

Ramaswamy has called fossil fuels “a requirement for human prosperity” but has also been a proponent of nuclear energy, which some consider a potentially valuable renewable energy source while others raise safety concerns about its storage. 

Asked if the candidate considers climate change a threat that requires intervention by the federal government, a spokesperson for the Ramaswamy campaign told The Hill in an email that he believes “there's a reason why climate activists are the biggest opponents of nuclear and hydroelectric energy, and why they restrict fossil fuel production in the US while shifting it to places like Russia & China: their agenda has nothing to do with ‘climate’ & everything to do with global ‘equity.’” 

Passing the buck to private enterprise 

Several of the GOP candidates, including DeSantis, have indicated that they believe efforts to combat climate change should be the purview of private industry rather than the government. 

The Florida governor’s campaign referred The Hill to comments he made in an interview with Fox News’s Stu Varney, in which DeSantis, asked directly whether he had a climate plan, said: “In Florida, we've actually had a huge reduction in emissions, but it was done through innovation. It was done through market forces, not command and control. So we'll go about that in a much different direction than Joe Biden.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a long shot for the Republican nomination, has made little reference to climate change on the campaign trail, but as governor made comments pointing to a similar belief. "Our power companies have voluntarily embraced sources of alternative energy without heavy-handed regulation from government,” he told Reuters in 2020. "Which indicates to me that they are following the markets. We prefer a market-driven response to government mandates."  

Similarly, Ken Farnaso, a spokesman for former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley’s campaign, told The Hill in an email she “believes that when it comes to climate change, capitalism and economic freedom aren’t the problem—they’re the solution.” 

Haley, who has garnered mid-single-digit support in polling, has backed carbon-capture technology, which sucks carbon dioxide from the air, calling it an example of “innovative ideas that actually work” in contrast to policies pursued by the Democratic Party. 

She has also pledged to roll back Biden administration energy subsidies and environmental regulations and promote domestic oil and gas production if she is elected. 

“As president, she will pursue an all-of-the-above energy policy that lowers costs for Americans," Farnaso said. 

A mixed history of climate stances 

As U.N. ambassador during the Trump administration, Haley played a key role in the former president’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which she touts on her campaign website. The move was also enthusiastically backed by former Vice President Mike Pence and by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who was one of its most fervent supporters in the Senate — even as both have for years acknowledged humanity’s part in changing the climate.  

Scott’s campaign did not immediately respond when asked whether he would withdraw from the agreement again if elected, but both Haley’s and Pence’s campaigns confirmed to The Hill that they would, as did Ramaswamy’s. 

Pence, who is polling in third place in the primary behind Trump and DeSantis according to FiveThirtyEight’s polling average, acknowledged the human role in climate change as early as 2016. In a June CNN town hall, during a period where much of the East Coast was blanketed in haze from Canadian wildfires, Pence said “clearly the climate is changing,” but not “as dramatically as the radical environmentalists like to present.” 

But in addition to backing Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, he has also been a proponent of increased oil and gas development, like most of the GOP candidates. A Pence adviser said the former vice president has not released a formal climate policy, but referred The Hill to policy proposals from his communications firm Advancing American Freedom, which call for an end to federal subsidies for “any energy source” as well as expansions of oil and gas exploration and increased exports of liquefied natural gas. 

Scott, who has also been polling in the low single digits, told the Charleston Post & Courier in 2017 that “there is no doubt” humanity has contributed to climate change, adding that he is “not living under a rock.” But along with supporting withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, Scott joined every other Republican in the Senate last year in voting against the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate bill in the country’s history. 

He has also touted support for further extraction of fossil fuels in the U.S. on the campaign trail, saying in Iowa that "making sure we have the strongest excavation of our natural resources is absolutely essential to the future of our nation." At the same appearance, he also highlighted his support for biofuels. 

A spokesperson for the Scott campaign referred The Hill to Scott’s record of supporting some policies that would promote renewables in the Senate, including his backing for the nuclear production tax credit, his support for energy permitting reform plans introduced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and his co-sponsorship of the RISEE Act, which would distribute offshore wind revenues to states.  

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another candidate polling in the low-single digits, also has a mixed record on the issue. He has acknowledged the existence of human-caused climate change since 2011, a period when many of his fellow Republicans outright denied its existence. However, as governor he also withdrew the Garden State from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a carbon emissions trading program involving several northeastern states that aims to cap regional carbon emissions through the issuance of tradeable carbon allowances. New Jersey rejoined RGGI in 2018 under Christie’s successor, current Gov. Phil Murphy (D).  

Christie, whose 2024 campaign has largely hinged on his willingness to criticize Trump, has made little mention of climate on the campaign trail.  

Taking a stronger stand 

Some of the long-shot candidates in the race have taken more moderate — or even relatively hawkish — stances on the issue than their opponents who are garnering more support. 

In June, for instance, former Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas) went further than many of his fellow candidates toward acknowledging climate change as a significant threat. Addressing the wildfire smoke that is spreading across much of the U.S., he tweeted that “reducing both the frequency of destructive wildfires and the billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions they generate is a must to address Climate Change.” 

“When more people think Climate Change is impacting them personally, then we will see the focus required to fix it while staying energy independent,” he added. 

Hurd’s record on the issue while in office was far from aggressive, however. While he was considered a moderate member of his caucus during his six years in the House, he received a lifetime score of only 13 percent from the League of Conservation Voters for his voting record on what experts deemed important pieces of environmental legislation. 

Two other long-shot candidates, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, are the only contenders with a record of actively seeking to cut emissions. Both are currently polling close to 0 percent, according to the FiveThirtyEight polling average. 

Suarez has perhaps the most aggressive record in office on climate change of any GOP candidate, setting a goal in 2020 to make the city emission-neutral by 2050. The details of his plan include converting the city’s electricity supply entirely to renewables by 2035.  

Burgum, meanwhile, has set a goal to make his state carbon-neutral by the end of the decade. North Dakota relies heavily on fossil fuel industry jobs, as the third-leading state for crude oil production, and Burgum has also heavily touted carbon-capture technology rather than phasing out the use of fossil fuels as a way to achieve carbon neutrality. 

In an email to The Hill, Suarez said he believes the party can make space for sensible climate action without accepting the Democratic Party’s framing of the issue. 

"I think my party would be wise to acknowledge that we all need to respect our environment. That our goal should be to leave a world to our children that is better than the one our parents handed us. But that doesn’t mean we have to buy into the Al Gore ‘we are all going to die’ extremism,” he said. “We should practice the three climate R’s. Be Responsible, Be Reasonable and be Rational … and understand that the environment IS the economy, it's not one or the other." 

In both agenda and rhetoric, the Republican field is in sharp contrast with Biden on climate. Biden, the far-and-away front-runner to once again claim the Democratic nomination, has called climate change “the only truly existential threat” to humanity. While he has taken several steps that have drawn criticism from climate advocates in recent months, most notable among them his approval of a major oil drilling project in Alaska, Biden has staked out an aggressive stance on the issue as president, including by championing the Inflation Reduction Act, rejoining the Paris Agreement and imposing a pause on new oil leasing on federal lands that has since been struck down by the courts. He has touted his climate-related accomplishments and goals on the 2024 campaign trail and garnered endorsements from several major environmental organizations in his reelection bid. 

On the Republican side, meanwhile, even the candidates who have acknowledged human-caused climate change as a threat or worked to fight it in the past have so far made little mention of it on the campaign trail. 

At this stage in the race, there’s little political incentive for Republicans to discuss climate change, said Ford O’Connell, a Republican strategist based in Florida, even if they may have an environmental record to draw on like DeSantis.  

“What you do not see from the Republicans is sort of what Republican [voters] see as a green energy assault on the economy,” O’Connell told The Hill. “You have to balance the environment with the world’s leading economy.”  

“I don’t think, necessarily, that the Republicans do the best job of making that point to the voters,” particularly those under 35, he added, and those younger voters will be a far larger problem in a general election.   

Forthcoming guidance from the Treasury Department that could have major implications for climate change is sparking fierce debate in Washington. 

The guidance will set the rules for the hydrogen energy industry — which has the potential to cut emissions from hard-to-abate sectors like the steel, cement and chemicals industries — as it looks to take advantage of a lucrative tax credit provided by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Climate activists, however, say that if the policy gives the industry too much leeway on where it gets its power to produce the hydrogen, it could be a disaster for the warming planet. 

Lena Moffitt, executive director of climate advocacy group Evergreen, called the forthcoming guidance “the key determinant of whether or not we get truly clean hydrogen in this country — with massive emissions ramifications.”

The Democrats’ climate, tax and health care bill provides a tax credit for low-carbon hydrogen energy. This type of energy is produced by using low-carbon energy to power an electrolyzer that sends an electric current through water to separate it into hydrogen and oxygen.

Among other applications, hydrogen is seen as a way to cut emissions from sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, including the iron, steel, chemicals industries, as well as long-haul transportation. 

But, the extent of hydrogen’s climate benefits could be determined by the Treasury guidance, which is due by the middle of August, and could set the rules for what a hydrogen producer needs to do in order to qualify. 

Environmental advocates have pointed to research that found putting strict rules on how the industry sources its low carbon power will have significant emissions benefits. They have raised concerns that looser rules could allow hydrogen to compete with other electricity users on the grid for clean power — driving up electricity demand and indirectly spurring more fossil fuel use. 

One analysis from consulting firm Evolved Energy Research, for instance, found that if the Treasury Department puts strict requirements in place, between 250 and 640 million metric tons of carbon dioxide would be avoided through 2032 — the equivalent of one year of emissions from between 67 and 171 coal-fired power plants.

On the other hand, some industry players say the policies favored by the climate movement could stifle the nascent hydrogen industry. 

Shannon Angielski, president of the Clean Hydrogen Future Coalition, which advocates for spurring hydrogen energy development, says the immediate goal of the guidance should be to “get this clean hydrogen industry launched with very pragmatic rules of the road so that way it can scale.”

That group’s members include oil companies and utilities as well as producers of gas, hydrogen, renewable energy and nuclear energy. 

Advocates on this side of the ledger have pointed to an analysis finding that if the Treasury Department takes a stricter position on a key provision in its guidance, it would be “ultimately hindering the economic competitiveness and adoption” of green hydrogen. That same analysis from research and consulting firm Wood Mackenzie found that if the department adopts a looser position it would result in a “marginal” emissions increase. 

The tax credit included in the Inflation Reduction Act is itself considered a major boost for both hydrogen energy in general and hydrogen produced from low-carbon sources in particular, with BloombergNEF hydrogen analyst Adithya Bhashyam calling it a “game-changer.”

“For the domestic market, hydrogen would need some sort of policy support to compete with existing fossil fuels in most use cases” without the credit, Bhashyam said, adding that it puts the U.S. in a position to possibly become a hydrogen exporter. 

But, the contours of what hydrogen producers will have to do to qualify are still forthcoming. One major point of dispute is whether hydrogen counts as “clean” if it uses energy that is already on the grid — or if there should be a requirement for the power to come from new energy sources.

Climate advocates warn that if hydrogen production uses up low-carbon electrons that are already on the grid, it raises electricity demand across the board — and could result in the utilization of more fossil fuels.

The hydrogen industry, meanwhile, has raised concerns about how long it takes to get new carbon-free power up and running. 

Other questions in the debate include where the clean energy to power the hydrogen production should come from and how often they have to match their energy usage to clean power sources. 

Climate advocates say electrolyzers should essentially run constantly on clean power, having to match their electricity use to a clean energy source every hour, and that the power should come from the same area as the hydrogen plant.

Industry, on the other hand, favors a system in which a hydrogen producer can use whatever power is available on the grid as long as it makes a yearly purchase of the equivalent amount of clean power. 

Frank Wolak, president and CEO of the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association, said that hourly matching has practical barriers, including that it’s not universally available.

“Today there are measurements and market indications that time matching can be available, but … until that is available universally where there’s clear market signals and pricing and you can go to brokers to actually get an hourly matched renewable energy credit or a series of brokers to get competitive pricing the application of hourly matching is sort of scenario and theoretical,” he said. 

Environmental groups have said that collectively, all three of the policies they’re pushing for are critical to ensuring the future of hydrogen is climate-friendly. 

“They are the best system of guardrails that we have to make sure that these … very power hungry assets that are electrolyzers do not increase emissions on the grid,” said Rachel Fakhry, policy director for emerging technologies at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

“If you strip one out … what we are seeing from analyses that examine the impact on the power sector, on the economy is that the system would be significantly compromised,” Fakhry added. “They all have to work together.”

Meanwhile, there may be at least some congressional support for the Treasury Department to take a more lenient approach in its forthcoming guidance. The Senate Appropriations Committee recently approved an amendment to a funding bill submitted by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that expressed concern “that the Department of the Treasury is considering imposing additional limitations or restrictions … in order to qualify for the clean hydrogen production tax credit.”

A Treasury spokesperson declined to comment on the guidance ahead of its release. 

Others have staked out what they describe as middle ground positions in the debate. For instance, the American Clean Power Association, which represents renewable energy companies, says that there should be a window in which “first-mover” projects get the more relaxed requirement to match their use of electricity with equivalent purchases each year but those that break ground starting in 2029 have to do stricter hourly matching.

JC Sandberg, the group’s chief advocacy officer, said the organization was trying to strike a balance between “too much regulation in the beginning which would not allow the industry to reach its full potential” and “too little regulation” that prevents it from cutting emissions. 

Hydrogen energy may also play a significant role in the future of power generation that currently occurs at natural gas plants thanks to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

A new EPA rule would require some gas plants to cut their emissions using methods including potentially co-firing hydrogen with gas to reduce the amount of fossil fuel that is burned, potentially giving the emissions associated with hydrogen production even greater implications. 

Moffitt, from Evergreen, said that as a result of that EPA rule, if “the hydrogen that we get flowing into the market subsidized by … public climate money is dirty, that could dramatically undercut the impact of the carbon standards for power plants.”

Cancer-linked “forever chemicals” and certain compounds used in plastic production may be associated with a heightened risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, according to a study from researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

Exposure to these substances — which are all widespread in the San Francisco region — could carry an increased threat of gestational diabetes, life-threatening preeclampsia and pregnancy hypertension in Bay Area individuals, according to a study published Wednesday in Environmental Health Perspectives.

“While many chemicals used in plastics and other products are assumed to be safe, our study adds to a growing body of evidence showing that many of these chemicals are leading to subtle changes in health outcomes that are cause for concern,” lead author Jessica Trowbridge, of UCSF’s Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, said in a statement.  

Describing prenatal exposures to environmental contaminants as “ubiquitous in the United States,” the authors stressed that fewer than 1 percent of the more than 40,000 chemicals that are processed, imported or used in the U.S. are routinely monitored for their presence in the human body.

Even fewer compounds, they explained, are evaluated for adverse health impacts during pregnancy, even though existing research has shown that such exposures “can have lifelong consequences for maternal and child health outcomes.”

To shed light on the impacts of specific compounds, Trowbridge and her colleagues took maternal and umbilical cord samples from 302 participants in the “Chemicals in Our Bodies” group — a pregnancy cohort within the National Institutes of Health Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes Program.

The researchers measured for the presence of two types of “forever chemicals,” PFOS and PFHxS, which are part of an umbrella group of thousands of synthetic and long-lasting compounds, called per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS).

These substances, which are linked to thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer and other illnesses, are found in certain firefighting foams and a variety of household products, such as nonstick pans, cosmetics and waterproof apparel.

In addition to measuring PFAS levels, the scientists also looked for monoethylhexyl phthalate (MEHP), a common plasticizer; 4-nitrophenol, a known endocrine disruptor used in pesticides, dyes and pharmaceuticals; and tetraethylene glycol, a plasticizer and solvent.

They also assessed levels of deoxycholic acid, a bile acid associated with gestational diabetes, as well as those of tridecanedioic and octadecanedioic acids — two types of fatty acids used in plastic synthesis that had previously only been linked to Reye syndrome, a rare disorder characterized by liver failure.

Ultimately, the researchers detected PFOS, PFHxS, octadecanedioic acid and deoxycholic acid in at least 97 percent of the maternal samples.

Meanwhile, they found deoxycholic acid, tridecanedioic acid and PFHxS in at least 87 percent of cord blood samples — meaning, these compounds readily pass through the placenta.

As far as MEHP, 4-nitrophenol and tetraethylene glycol were concerned, the scientists observed these compounds in fewer than 50 percent of the maternal samples. They therefore excluded these substances from further analyses.

The scientists identified pregnancy complications — gestational diabetes, preeclampsia and pregnancy-related hypertension — by accessing clinical diagnoses and medical records, as well as glucose tolerance tests for diabetes in particular.

They found that 19 percent of participants had a diagnosis of gestational diabetes, 14 percent had gestational hypertension and 7 percent had preeclampsia.

After modeling all the data, the authors observed a trend of increased odds of gestational diabetes as exposure to environmental contaminants rose, with the strongest connections to PFOS, octadecanedioic acid, tridecanedioic acid and deoxycholic acid.

Regarding pregnancy hypertensive disorders — including both preeclampsia and gestational hypertension — they found that exposure to tridecanedioic acid came with the greatest risk.

“The association between these chemicals and an increased risk of poor pregnancy outcomes … should be a wake-up call on the effects of the proliferation of plastic chemicals and PFAS,” senior author Tracey Woodruff, director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, said in a statement.

“I hope policymakers and EPA regulators will take a good, hard look at the results of this study and others that show a link between plastic chemicals and PFAS and health harms,” Woodruff added. 

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) spoke Tuesday but failed to make any progress on breaking the logjam of nearly 300 military promotions being held up by the senator, Tuberville said.

According to a Tuberville spokesperson, the two officials had “another cordial conversation” and spoke about the planned Senate briefing with Defense officials to discuss the Pentagon’s abortion policy that sparked the fight. The policy allows the department to cover travel expenses for military members to seek abortion care.

The Pentagon and Democrats have been trying to move him off the holds.

“Coach looks forward to the briefing and to further discussions to resolve the situation,” the spokesperson added.

Tuberville told reporters at the Capitol, however, that the talks have yet to yield any progress toward a resolution.

“No, not yet,” Tuberville said. “None. … Just cordial [conversations]. Everybody gives their position and then, ‘Well, let’s talk again.’”

A Defense Department official confirmed the call had happened and said Austin "underscored to Sen. Tuberville the mounting disruption the holds were inflicting on military families, who have already sacrificed so much."

"Secretary Austin has also explained to Sen. Tuberville, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, that his blanket holds were increasingly harming U.S. military readiness and national security at a critical geopolitical moment," the official added.

Tuberville said he was hopeful that the annual National Defense Authorization Act could codify a reversal of the Pentagon’s policy after the House included such language in their version last week, which he said he was pleased with. Senate Democrats are not expected to include that provision in the upper chamber’s version of the bill. 

"I like what the House has in [their version]. I just don't know about ours," Tuberville said.

Ellen Mitchell contributed.