Trump’s $175 Million Bond Is Even Shadier Than It Looks

Daily Beast

Trump’s $175 Million Bond Is Even Shadier Than It Looks

Jose Pagliery – April 8, 2024

Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty
Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty

The little-known insurance company that rescued Donald Trump by providing a last-minute $175 million bank fraud bond isn’t just unlicensed in New York; it hasn’t even been vetted by a voluntary state entity that would verify it meets minimum “eligibility standards” to prove financial stability.

Perhaps even more troubling, the legal document from Knight Specialty Insurance Company doesn’t actually promise it will pay the money if the former president loses his $464 million bank fraud case on appeal. Instead, it says Trump will pay, negating the whole point of an insurance company guarantee, according to three legal and bond experts who reviewed the contract for The Daily Beast.

“This is not common… the only reason this would be done is to limit the liability to the surety,” said N. Alex Hanley, an expert in how companies appeal enormous judgments.

New York AG Questions if $175 Million Bond Insurer Can Save Trump

These two points, noted here for the first time, validate the New York attorney general’s concerns that Trump is trying to avoid a financial punishment that could be catastrophic to his riches and reputation.

“There are many questions here, and that short piece of paper gives very little comfort,” said Maria T. Vullo, who was formerly New York’s top financial regulator.

“I believe this paper isn’t worth much and there are more shenanigans behind it,” said one former regulator, who’s intimately familiar with industry norms but spoke only on condition of anonymity.

After a three-month trial ended with a state judge concluding that Trump committed bank fraud for a decade by lying about his wealth and property values, the real estate tycoon and his top executives were ordered to pay $464 million—a massive sum that increases every day with interest that dates back years. But unable to find a large and trusted surety company to provide the half-billion-dollar bond that would legally halt AG Letitia James from seizing his properties, Trump convinced an appellate court to lower that sum to $175 million.

He then opted for an insurance company in California that’s tied to Don Hankey Jr., a billionaire MAGA supporter who’s built a nasty reputation by dealing in subprime auto loans that have resulted in numerous complaints about predatory business practices—like illegally repossessing the cars of American soldiers.

On Thursday, The Daily Beast noted how the Knight Specialty Insurance Company isn’t licensed by New York’s Department of Financial Services, a detail that has caught the attention of bond experts. What’s more, the firm’s financial statements show that it doesn’t have the “surplus” to meet the capital requirements for posting the bond.

Just like federal regulators require financial institutions to have sufficient reserves in case of a run on the banks, New York law limits how much money state-regulated surety companies can post on a single bond to 10 percent of a firm’s total “capital and surplus.” However, a court filing by the company on Thursday showed that Knight Specialty only has $138 million in “surplus,” vastly exceeding the government-set cap because the Trump bond alone makes up 127 percent of the company’s reserves.

“Based on the financial statement provided, Knight Specialty is providing a bond that is one-third of its total assets and greater than its surplus, which is incomprehensible for a carrier to underwrite,” said Vullo, who was previously the superintendent of New York’s DFS.

In subsequent court filings, the AG’s office immediately questioned whether Knight Specialty was even good for the money. The law enforcement agency said it “takes exception to the sufficiency of the surety,” noting that Knight Specialty is trying to operate “without a certificate of qualification.”

Former president Donald Trump looks on at the 18th green during day three of the LIV Golf Invitational - Miami at Trump National Doral Miami
Former president Donald Trump looks on at the 18th green during day three of the LIV Golf Invitational – Miami at Trump National Doral Miami.Megan Briggs/Getty Images

In normal circumstances, defendants like Trump would tap a surety company overseen by state regulators at DFS, which verifies that an insurer is “solvent, responsible and otherwise qualified to make policies or contracts of the kind required.” But Knight Specialty appears to be helping Trump with an alternate option: operating through what’s called the “excess and surplus lines insurance” market.

In the industry, this secondary exchange is typically reserved for high-risk business ventures, or those that have a severe loss history that makes them untouchable in the primary market, forcing them to find a willing insurer that isn’t licensed in their home state.

Indeed, the insurance company’s president, Amit Shah, made that very point when defending his firm’s ability to strike this deal, telling CBS that Knight “is not a New York domestic insurer, and New York surplus lines insurance laws do not regulate the solvency of non-New York excess lines insurers.”

That’s why Knight Specialty’s recent finances—which showed that its “capital and surplus” were even smaller in recent years—were registered with the Surplus Lines Stamping Office of Texas, a government-created nonprofit that tracks these types of figures.

New York has a nonprofit like that too, called the Excess Line Association of New York. ELANY states that its role is to “facilitate compliance,” by verifying that these secondary-market insurers “meet eligibility standards in order to underwrite risks presented by excess line brokers.” The group’s communications manager, John Rosenblatt, explained that ELANY “conducts a thorough financial examination of every foreign insurer listed.”

It’s a voluntary process, but one that’s meant to actually prove that a company is trustworthy and stable.

“The ELANY list is composed of insurers that request to be listed and are approved by ELANY following a thorough analysis of the insurer’s financial security,” Rosenblatt told The Daily Beast.

Trump’s Bond Backer Repo’d Soldier Cars

But that raises another issue.

“Knight Specialty Insurance Company is not on the ELANY voluntary list,” Rosenblatt said.

While any company filing these types of transactions to the New York quasi-governmental private sector regulator must use a licensed broker within 45 days, ELANY said it has “no knowledge of the specific transaction at this time.”

Furthering the point of just how anomalous this Trump deal is, ELANY recorded $76 million and $74 million in “surety and fidelity” transactions in 2022 and 2023, respectively. That means Trump’s bond alone would represent double what ELANY typically monitors over hundreds of transactions in a given year—and that includes premiums that aren’t only tied to court judgments like this one.

In his interview with CBS last week, Knight Specialty’s president asserted that the company has more than $1 billion in “equity.” The bond it posted on Thursday also included a financial snapshot of a second corporate entity, the similarly named Knight Insurance Company LTD, which lists $1 billion in “surplus to policy holders.”

The document seems to suggest that the smaller company is somehow strengthened by the existence of the larger one. But only the smaller company is actually listed on the bond agreement.

In reality, though, a strict reading of “Bond No. 350588” shows that even the smaller company isn’t technically on the hook for paying out the $175 million if higher courts ultimately cement his loss to the AG.

Buried in the typical legalese of the contract is the phrase: “Knight Specialty Insurance Company… does hereby… undertake that if the judgment… is dismissed… Donald J. Trump… shall pay… the sum directed.”

In other words: If Trump loses the case, Trump will pay. But that’s no different than Trump’s obligation before the bond was issued.

“Getting into the weeds, the company undertakes that Trump will pay,” said one bond industry source who declined to be publicly identified for this story.

This is Trump’s second big-figure bond in recent weeks, making the earlier bond apt for comparison. In that other case, Trump is appealing an $83 million federal jury verdict for defaming the journalist E. Jean Carroll by denying that he raped her. He managed to score a deal with a subsidiary of the insurance megagiant Chubb that would force it to pay $92 million if the cash-strapped politician couldn’t cough up the money.

Trump Gets a Massive Lifeline on Half-Billion-Dollar Bond

Unlike the bank fraud bond, the Carroll bond agreement specifically states “such payment shall be made” “by the surety to the obligee” if Trump fails to pay. Hanley said a proper contract would name Trump and the insurance company “jointly and severally,” which would mean they’re both on the hook for the total.

This wouldn’t be the first time that Trump has been caught trying to slip questionable clauses in a bond contract. In the Carroll case, Trump almost got away with an underhanded 60-day delay to pay her—that is, until her lawyers brought it to the judge’s attention.

As if that’s not enough, there’s a third gem buried in this contract that has industry experts and lawyers scratching their heads. The standard practice would be to promise that the loser would pay the judgment, “plus interests and costs.” However, Trump’s bank fraud bond doesn’t list that either.

Instead, it says “the liability of this bond shall not exceed the sum” of $175 million.

Clifford Robert, the lawyer who filed the bond with the court and also represents Trump’s sons Don Jr. and Eric in this case, did not respond to questions. Neither did Knight Speciality Insurance Company.

Hanley, the bond expert, said the lawyers who drew up this latest Trump bond could try to assert that Knight Specialty doesn’t owe anybody anything—without much success. But it bears all the hallmarks of Trump’s overarching legal strategy: pushing off the inevitable as long as possible.

“That could be set up for that argument, but this would fall under a common-law statute. My best guess is that this is all set up to delay again,” he said.

The Shady Company Backing Trump’s Bond Somehow Just Got Even Shadier

The New Republic – Opinion

The Shady Company Backing Trump’s Bond Somehow Just Got Even Shadier

Ben Metzner – April 8, 2024

It’s conventional wisdom that the right wing is dominated, defined, even, by “grifters all the way down.” No big surprise, then, that the insurance company footing the bill for Donald Trump’s fraud case bond is itself unscrupulous.

An investigation by The Daily Beast revealed that Knight Specialty Insurance, the company backing Trump’s $175 million civil fraud penalty payment, is not licensed as a solvent surety firm by the New York Department of Financial Services, and has not been vetted by the state’s Excess Line Association, a board of insurers that provides voluntary audits of other insurer’s finances. The reason for that: The California-based Knight does not appear to have enough money in its coffers to post Trump’s bonds.

According to the Beast, Trump’s bond accounts for a third of the company’s assets and more than its total surplus funds. Maria T. Vullo, a former New York financial regulator, has called the move to post Trump’s bond “incomprehensible for a carrier to underwrite.”

The company, for its part, seems aware of its predicament: The Beast reports that Knight has not legally promised to pay Trump’s penalty if the former president’s appeal is unsuccessful. Instead, the document Knight produced indicates, Trump would still be responsible for paying.

Knight Specialty Insurance is owned by the “king of the subprime car loan,” right-wing billionaire Don Hankey. Hankey appeared to come to Trump’s rescue after the former president loudly struggled to post in his real estate fraud case.

But now, what appeared to be a stroke of luck for Trump may actually be a case of two grifters looking to get one over on one another. If Hankey’s company in fact has not legally agreed to pay the penalty, Trump may ultimately be forced to forfeit assets if he cannot cover the disgorgement himself. New York Attorney General Letitia James has promised to seize Trump properties if he cannot pay.

In dealing with a shady businessman like Hankey, Trump, whose Department of Justice sued Hankey for illegally repossessing the cars of military veterans, might have heeded the words of one of his favorite poems: “You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.”

Trump’s $175 million bond makes no sense

Salon

“Incomprehensible”: Experts say Trump’s $175 million bond makes no sense

Charles R. Davis – April 8, 2024

Donald Trump Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Donald Trump Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Former President Donald Trump’s effort to challenge his massive civil fraud conviction itself appears to rely on deception, The Daily Beast reported Monday.

Last week, Trump posted a $175 million bond to appeal his $454 million fraud conviction in New York — this, after his lawyers claimed he was unable to find anyone willing to guarantee he would actually pay the full amount. In order to post that bond, the former president turned to Knight Speciality Insurance Company, led by billionaire Don Hankey, described by MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin as the “king of subprime car loans.”

But according to former regulators and other legal experts, the bond is highly irregular. Per a legal filing, it amounts to little more than a promise that Trump himself could pay the full cost of the bond if he ultimately loses his appeal, The Daily Beast reported, noting that such an arrangement effectively negates “the whole point of an insurance company guarantee.”

It does not appear that Knight Specialty Insurance Co. could even cover the bond if it wanted: according to a court filing, the company has financial reserves of just $138 million. And while a related corporate entity claims a financial surplus of $1 billion, the court filing does not explicitly state that it would be liable.

“Based on the financial statement provided, Knight Specialty is providing a bond that is one-third of its total assets and greater than its surplus, which is incomprehensible for a carrier to underwrite,” Maria T. Vullo, a law professor at Fordham University who previously served as New York’s top financial regulator, told the publication.

Indeed, experts who reviewed the bond filing said it appears to state that it is “Donald J. Trump” who “shall pay” any bond, an arrangement that is far from normal.

“This is not common,” N. Alex Hanley, CEO of the civil bond company Jurisco, told the outlet.

New York Attorney General Letitia James also has questions about the bond and its issuer’s ability to pay it, stating in a legal filing last week that she “takes exception to the sufficiency of the surety to the undertaking.” A hearing on Trump’s bond and the potential issues with it is scheduled for April 22.

Hankey, for his part, in a recent interview with Reuters insisted that he had accepted collateral for the $175 million bond. But he added that he was not sure exactly what the source of it was.

“I don’t know if it came from Donald Trump or from Donald Trump and supporters,” he said, adding that he now regrets only charging a Trump a “low fee” for his services.

Businessman behind Trump’s NY bond says he charged him a ‘low fee’

Reuters

Businessman behind Trump’s NY bond says he charged him a ‘low fee’

Koh Gui Qing – April 5, 2024

FILE PHOTO: New York Attorney General Letitia James holds a press conference following a ruling against former U.S. President Donald Trump, in New York City
New York Attorney General Letitia James holds a press conference following a ruling against former U.S. President Donald Trump, in New York City
FILE PHOTO: Former U.S. President Trump holds presser after criminal case hearing on porn star hush money charges in New York
Former U.S. President Trump holds presser after criminal case hearing on porn star hush money charges in New York

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Don Hankey, the billionaire businessman whose company Knight Specialty Insurance provided the $175 million bond that Donald Trump posted in his New York civil fraud case, told Reuters that the fee his firm charged the former U.S. President was low.

Hankey, who backed Trump as a presidential candidate in 2016 and has said he supports his re-election, has maintained that providing the bond was a business decision. He declined to disclose the fee, but said it was low because Knight did not think there was much risk involved.

Lawyers say surety companies typically charge a fee of between 1% and 2% of the face value of the bond.

Hankey said he now feels Knight did not charge Trump enough because of New York Attorney General Letitia James‘ subsequent scrutiny of the bond, as well as the media attention around it.

“We thought it would be an easy procedure that wouldn’t involve other legal problems and it’s not turning out that way. We probably didn’t charge enough,” Hankey said in an interview.

“We have been getting a lot of emails, a lot of phone calls. Maybe that’s part of the reason he had trouble with other insurance companies,” Hankey said, adding that despite the issues, he did not regret providing the bond.

Trump posted the $175 million bond on April 1, as he appeals a $454 million fraud judgement against him for overstating his net worth and the value of his real estate to dupe banks and insurers, in a case brought by James.

On Thursday, James’ office questioned the $175 million bond, asking that Knight provide proof that it has enough assets to pay if Trump’s appeal fails. A New York judge will hold a hearing on the matter on April 22.

Hankey, whose net worth is pegged by Forbes at $7.4 billion, said he was taken aback by James’ questioning the bond. “I’m surprised they’re coming down harder on our bond or looking for reasons to cause issues with our instrument,” he said.

Hankey, who runs a group of businesses including a provider of subprime automotive loans that has been reprimanded by regulators for predatory behaviour involving customers, said Trump offered collateral for the $175 million in cash.

He said the cash is held at a brokerage firm and pledged to Knight, and that Knight can access it if needed.

“I don’t know if it came from Donald Trump or from Donald Trump and supporters,” Hankey said of the cash Trump provided for collateral.

Hankey said he first approached Trump’s representatives to discuss how he could help Trump with the bond, before the former president managed to get it reduced on appeal from $454 million to $175 million. Trump would have had to “come up with a lot of collateral or somebody else would,” Hankey said.

Hankey said he understood from Trump’s representatives that Trump did not have $454 million in cash.

Trump last month said in a post on his social media platform Truth Social that he had “almost five hundred million dollars in cash.” In an April 2023 deposition with James, he said he had “substantially in excess of $400 million in cash.”

A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

(Reporting by Koh Gui Qing in New York; Editing by Greg Roumeliotis and Bill Berkrot)

The real price tag for Trump’s billionaires’ banquet

CNN Opinion:

The real price tag for Trump’s billionaires’ banquet

Opinion by Dean Obeidallah – April 7, 2024

Editor’s Note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is the host of SiriusXM radio’s daily program “The Dean Obeidallah Show.”

This weekend, some 100 wealthy people were on the guest list for an exclusive fundraising event at the ritzy Palm Beach, Florida, home of billionaire investor John Paulson.

Dean Obeidallah - CNN
Dean Obeidallah – CNN

The soirée reportedly raised more than $50 million for former President Donald Trump’s 2024 White House campaign. Trump’s well-heeled backers paid $250,000 per person for those serving on the “host committee” to $824,600 per person to serve as a “chairman.” Those contributing at the top level were allowed to be seated at Trump’s table during dinner.

In more normal times, there would be nothing particularly remarkable about this kind of high-priced fundraiser. Trump, however, is anything but a conventional Republican candidate. After all, he attempted a coup to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election for which he now faces numerous felony charges.

Trump’s deep-pocketed and highly credentialed donors, including Paulson, doubtless are fully aware of his record, but nevertheless see fit to donate massive sums of money to a man who attempted to destroy the peaceful transfer of power that stands at the heart of our democracy.

Paulson and the other wealthy donors who attended Saturday night’s event must surely be aware that Trump sat idly by, watching on television as the January 6 attacks unfolded — ignoring requests that he call off his supporters for more than three hours and even turning a deaf ear to his aides and one of his family members.

They may also know that since leaving the White House, Trump has celebrated the January 6 attackers, even starting many of his campaign rallies by playing a recording sung by the “J6 Prison Choir.” They might have heard that he has vowed to pardon those convicted of crimes related to the siege of the Capitol, which in some cases included assaulting police officers.

The effort to upend our democracy also involved violent groups like the right-wing, extremist Proud Boys, the leader of which has been convicted of seditious conspiracy in connection with his role in seeking to interfere with the peaceful handover of power on January 6.

None of that seems to have troubled these rich people — at least not enough to get them to forgo making massive donations to Trump’s presidential campaign. Their fundraiser came a little over a week after Democrats, including former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, held a star-studded fundraising event for incumbent President Joe Biden that raked in some $25 million.

If they’ve been paying attention, the wealthy donors at Saturday night’s fundraiser for Trump — who included hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, oil tycoon Harold Hamm and casino mogul Steve Wynn — might also be aware that in December, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump had been “engaged in an insurrection.” And even though the US Supreme Court ultimately determined that Trump could remain on the 2024 ballot in Colorado, it did not overrule the state’s high court on the issue of Trump having taken part in an “insurrection.”

Trump’s donors might even have heard reports about the former president channeling Adolf Hitler by declaring that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of our nation, his vow to be a “dictator” on the first day of his presidency and his repeated praise of autocrats. Presumably, if they found any of this alarming, they would not have donated at least a quarter of a million dollars per person to help Trump take back the White House.

To put it bluntly, I don’t put the sophisticated, ultra-wealthy people who attended this weekend’s campaign fundraiser in the same category as average Americans who have been conned time and again by Trump’s repeated lies that the 2020 election was “rigged.” I suspect that this elite group of backers knows exactly what is going on with the former president.

It seems more than plausible that Paulson had at least some second thoughts about Trump in 2024. In fact, earlier in the 2024 campaign, Paulson raised funds for Trump’s GOP primary opponent Ron DeSantis despite having made big donations to Trump in 2016 and 2020.

But all of that changed once it became clear that Trump would become the GOP’s presidential nominee. A few weeks ago, Paulson told CNN, during a discussion ahead of Saturday’s fundraiser, that he was “pleased to support President Trump in his re-election efforts.” He added, “His policies on the economy, energy, immigration and foreign policy will be very beneficial for the country.”

Paulson left out any mention of the Trump tax cut enacted in 2017, which greatly helped the very wealthy set, which Paulson and the others at Saturday’s dinner are privileged to be part of.

Is that why these very rich people are now turning a blind eye to the threat that Trump poses to the rule of law in our country? Are they hoping he’ll enact more policies that could fatten their wallets? Perhaps they have fully grasped the danger Trump poses to our republic, but have decided they are on board with him all the same.

Or perhaps they believe they can benefit as wealthy friends of an autocratic leader. After all, in Hungary led by Trump’s ally Viktor Orban, his inner circle has profited under his leadership with the funneling of contracts. Of course, the same can be said of Russia under Vladimir Putin, where the oligarchs who gave him their support became even wealthier — until running afoul of him, when some were “forced into exile or died in suspicious circumstances.”

A short time after the January 6 attack, Chuck Collins, director of the Project on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies, was unstinting in his criticism of Trump’s uber-wealthy backers. “They enabled Donald Trump. They bankrolled his campaigns,” he told the progressive news site Common Dreams. “And they cheered as Trump cut their taxes, swept away regulations that pinched their profits, and packed the courts with judges eager to wink at their transgressions.”

Liz Cheney — the conservative former US Representative from Wyoming and onetime Republican member of the House GOP leadership — warned Americans recently that with Trump’s second rise to power we are “sleepwalking into dictatorship.” If he in fact regains power, we can blame, among others, these short-sighted, wealthy enablers who helped underwrite Trump’s campaign. They undoubtedly know better, but appear to care more about helping their bottom line than protecting our democracy.

Acquisition of Budapest Airport may conclude within days, says PM Orban

Reuters

Acquisition of Budapest Airport may conclude within days, says PM Orban

Reuters – April 8, 2024

European leaders and EU’s Michel meet in Bucharest

BUDAPEST (Reuters) – The acquisition of Budapest Airport could conclude “within days”, Prime Minister Viktor Orban said in parliament on Monday, signalling an end to months of negotiations with majority owner AviAlliance.

Since Orban took power in 2010, his government has boosted Hungarian ownership in energy, banking, telecoms and the media, and has been planning to buy the airport for years.

“We hope that within days, the airport… will be owned in majority by the state”, he said. Hungary’s government submitted its binding offer in September 2023.

In 2021, Orban’s government submitted a non-binding offer to buy the airport, but the process was later halted amid high inflation and volatility in global financial markets.

Economy minister Marton Nagy said earlier in 2023 the financing of the package could include budget funds and development bank money. He did not say which assets the government might sell.

(Reporting by Boldizsar Gyori; Editing by Emelia Sithole-Matarise)

Rising opposition leads rally against Hungary’s Orban

Reuters

Rising opposition leads rally against Hungary’s Orban

Reuters Videos – April 7, 2024

STORY: Many protesters carried the national flag, shouting slogans such as, “We are not scared” and “Orban resign!”

“I believe in him and trust that he will lead this country out of this corrupt situation, which is heading in the direction of North Korea,” demonstrator Eva Hazenberger said.

The protesters marched to the parliament building in Budapest, where Magyar told his supporters he would help them get rid of the Orban administration.

“I did not start this whole thing to bring down the whole power elite alone,” Magyar said in his speech. “I began this to launch a completely new era. I am a spark that will ignite the engine.”

The 43-year-old, who says he plans to launch his own party, stated that the upcoming European parliamentary election would be the “first nail in the coffin” of the present government.

Magyar became widely known in February when he unleashed incendiary comments about the inner workings of the government and published a recording of a conversation with his ex-wife, where she detailed an attempt by a senior aide to Orban’s cabinet chief to interfere in a graft case. Prosecutors are now investigating the statements.

The probe comes at a politically sensitive time for Orban, ahead of European parliamentary elections in June and also follows a sex abuse scandal that brought down two of his key political allies – Hungary’s former president and Varga – in February.

Abortion Might Be a Winning Issue — Even in Florida

Politico

Abortion Might Be a Winning Issue — Even in Florida

Ryan Lizza – April 6, 2024

Chasity Maynard/Tallahassee Democrat via AP

Abortion rights supporters have been on a hot winning streak in state ballot initiatives since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. Now here comes Florida.

The Florida Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions earlier this week that upheld a strict abortion ban in the state and also cleared the way for Amendment 4, a November referendum on whether to enshrine the right to abortion in the Florida Constitution.

Anna Hochkammer did much of the heavy lifting to get Amendment 4 on the ballot as executive director of the Florida Women’s Freedom Coalition, but the job is getting only trickier amid the swirl of 2024 politics. Changing the Florida Constitution via referendum requires a 60 percent majority, which means Amendment 4 will need support from a lot of Floridians who would never back Joe Biden.

Still, Hochkammer is optimistic about winning a bipartisan coalition of support after studying the 11 post-Dobbs elections that have centered on abortion rights; she found that a message promoting freedom succeeds.

“Floridians are interested in freedom — personal freedom — and that became one of the North Stars of the entire petition,” she said in this week’s episode of Playbook Deep Dive.

I sat down with Hochkammer for POLITICO Magazine to discuss the delicate relationship between abortion rights activists and the Biden campaign, why she thinks politicians need to use the “a” word when talking about abortion and whether she would want Donald Trump to endorse Amendment 4 and be an ally for her cause.

This transcript has been condensed and edited for length and clarity.

Florida’s law on constitutional amendments is that they require 60 percent support. If I’m not mistaken, the abortion issue hasn’t hit 60 percent in any red state so far. How do you get to 60 percent in Florida? 

You get to 60 percent in Florida by being really focused about who you’re talking to, how you’re talking about abortion access and getting people to understand that it’s an issue that transcends politics.

You basically have to give people who are independents and Republicans permission to agree with you on this thing, to disagree with their individual candidate or their party, and to split that ticket if that’s what they feel they need to do. Yes, 60 percent can be an intimidating threshold. Florida has passed referenda at the 60 percent threshold over and over again over the last decade.

The Biden campaign this week argued after the Supreme Court’s decisions that Florida was suddenly “winnable.” You just said that voters need to split the ticket. Julie Chávez Rodríguez, Biden’s campaign manager, doesn’t want people to split the ticket. She wants people to support your amendment and vote for Joe Biden. How does that complicate things?

My election is to pass Amendment 4.

I do not live in a hole in the ground. We’re going to be on the November 2024 ballot in Florida, and all sorts of people and candidates in all kinds of races are looking at this as an opportunity for synergy. But I’m not trying to be naive when I say that more people support abortion access than probably support Santa Claus. It would be a crazy thing in 2024 in Florida to not support Amendment 4.

I don’t look at it as threatening. I look at it as smart people who are reading the room and realizing that 75 percent of Floridians reject the six-week abortion ban. I would never look at any candidate who agrees with me on this issue and say, “Please don’t talk about Amendment 4 because you’re running in a partisan race.” I say: “The more the merrier.” Just make the tent as big as possible on this particular issue, and let individual candidates and campaigns find their own way.

Would it help your campaign if Donald Trump came out and supported your amendment? 

I hope everyone who supports our amendment comes out and says so on the record, no matter who they are.

We’re in this situation because the Florida Legislature passed a 15-week ban, and then went back a year later and passed a six-week ban. We are just closing up another session of the Florida Legislature. If they had wanted to take this off the table, they could have simply undone it during the legislative session. In fact, Gov. Ron DeSantis could call a special session tomorrow on this issue, repeal the six-week ban, announce they got it wrong and take it off the table if they wanted to. That’s in their power to do.

It seems to me that it would be good for your campaign if Trump came out in favor of Amendment 4.

I want everybody who supports Amendment 4 to come out and say so — whoever you are, whatever your name, whatever your party affiliation, whatever your religious background, if you support Amendment 4, I would hope that people would have the courage to say so and say so on the record.

I’m trying to tease this out of you because the politics are so tricky. This isn’t an easy one for you, right?

I think the politics are really straightforward on this because I’m lucky enough that I’m working on an issue. I’m not working on a campaign, per se. I’m not working for a political party. It’s one of the reasons why the Florida Women’s Freedom Coalition has been doing such good work as part of the coalition to get Amendment 4 on the ballot and to get it to pass is that we are a single-issue PAC. We are a bipartisan PAC. We have advisers on board like our former [state] House Rep. Carlos Lacasa, who’s come out very strongly in favor of Amendment 4. He can make very persuasive political arguments from his perspective as a conservative, Cuban, Catholic Republican, former elected official in Florida about why he thinks Amendment 4 is the right thing to do and why he’s going to be voting for it. And keeping my arms wide open has done nothing except help this initiative.

What is the relationship between voters who are enthusiastic about going to the polls and supporting Amendment 4, but who may not like Joe Biden? What does your polling say about this? Is the Biden campaign’s enthusiasm warranted?

It’s really complicated. I would say that there are some elements of the moment here that are unique to November 2024. So it’s hard to draw conclusions about what Florida voters will do and what the voter universe will do inside the ballot box, because this is the first time that we’ve had the confluence of a statewide referendum on an issue in Florida that has coincided with a statewide or nationwide campaign that has chosen to focus on that exact issue. And I think that is probably the thing that makes this situation so hard to get a handle on.

I think abortion access is the most compelling domestic political issue in America right now. Everyone in America is talking about it. I think that through a bunch of different actions at the local, state and national level, the presidential election has become a proxy election about abortion. That is really the thing that makes it different.

I think you’re going to have candidates, whatever their position on abortion, telling their voters, whether they’re in California, New York state, Texas or Florida, “A vote for your presidential candidate is a vote on access to abortion.” It’s either banning abortion at the state level or wanting abortion access protected at a national level. And that’s a pretty stark political choice to give people at the top of the ticket while simultaneously asking them to vote about an abortion amendment at the bottom.

I don’t know whether the bottom is going to push the top, or the top is going to push the bottom, but I certainly think that more people feel positively about access to abortion than they do about any particular political candidate.


Let’s talk about the amendment language. There’s an art to writing these things.

Here’s the language: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.” How did you come up with those two sentences?

The first thing I have to acknowledge is that a lot of the heavy lifting was done on writing that language by working groups. Most of them were people that were associated with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU or had worked on other statewide referenda at other times in Florida.

Every state is its own universe when it comes to this sort of thing — what’s the law in the state where we are? What’s the process for getting something on the ballot? What’s the process for getting something to amend the constitution? What’s the legal history of the issue in our state?

Then you have to figure out what you want to say, what you want to do. And then you have to poll it. When you have a disagreement between one noun and another noun, one verb and another verb, you really do have to spend the time and money polling these things to see whether moving a comma or changing an adverb changes what voters perceive of this language. And so you really do have a data-informed process.

We didn’t officially launch this petition drive until June 1. And the first half of 2023 was really spent circling the horses, organizing and figuring out what we wanted to do so that we could avoid some of the problems that other referenda have had across the country. We had the great advantage in Florida of being able to learn from other states.

Tell us about that. What did you learn from the other post-Dobbs referenda? 

I looked at that Wisconsin Supreme Court race that got a ton of national attention and a huge amount of money was put into it. That was basically a proxy election about abortion access in Wisconsin. I think anybody who reads that election differently is choosing not to see what’s right in front of them.

So, I went through these 11 different elections that I considered either direct or proxy elections about abortion, and I tried to look for some common themes. I looked at the data — not only in what their polling told them about their messaging and about the voter universe that they expected, but we were lucky enough to be able to do an autopsy afterward.

My hypothesis about Florida is that as much as we like to underscore, you know, #FloridaMan, all the crazy stories out of Florida, Floridians do tend to follow some national trends. We’re not so far off the median American voter’s point of view that that data isn’t useful to us. One thing that became clear from the get-go was Floridians are interested in freedom — personal freedom — and that became one of the North Stars of the entire petition.

The top takeaway from those 11 campaigns is that abortion access is really popular with Americans. A lot of us had been trained in the political world, even in the reproductive rights and human rights world, to kind of dance around the word “abortion.”

Joe Biden recently did that.

Yeah. For a long time in politics, “reproductive health care” and “women’s health care” and “women’s rights” sort of became synonymous with access to abortion. I think the evidence shows, at least in the way that voters behave across America, that “abortion” is not a dirty word. And that holds true everywhere — whether it’s Kentucky, Ohio or California. And that holds true in Florida as well.

The other thing we learned is that people find abortion somewhat ethically fraught. The idea that if you support abortion access, you are hardened to the human stories — to the complicated feelings that people have about abortion — does not bear out. And in fact, I would say most Americans acknowledge that abortion is complicated. Not just medical abortion, but elective abortion. The circumstances around each and every one of these abortions can be something that gives people pause. And interestingly, it seems to me that what we need to do in politics around abortion is lean into that by saying, “It is complicated. It is fraught.”

We’re not having a referendum about pap smears. We’re not having a referendum about breast examinations. Nobody goes to a women’s clinic and says, “I need ‘care.’” You walk in, and you ask for something very specific because you need it — and that’s an abortion. And so we need to be able to say the word, and have conversations with voters assuming that they are functional grown-ups. Because when we do that on this issue, we find that time and time again across America, they vote “yes.”

Did it bother you that Joe Biden didn’t use the word “abortion” in the State of the Union? 

One part of me says, “Yes, I wish he’d used the word ‘abortion’ in the State of the Union.” And the other part of me, the grown-up, who’s not selfish and is able to see the bigger picture, is amazed that about a minute-and-a-half of the State of the Union was about abortion access. Whatever euphemisms he chose to use, he talked about my issue in ways that I have not heard a president talk about abortion, ever.

You know, the president of the United States is saying the issue that’s my No. 1 priority is a No. 1 priority for him. I can’t complain too much about that, frankly, even if it wasn’t exactly the way I would want it to happen.

Let’s go back to the language. Help us understand the two sentences. Why this language?

It’s 49 words. It’s two sentences. It’s plain language. You know, “viability” has been defined under Florida statute since 1979. It’s the Roe standard. So it is the most straightforward way, at least from a Floridian perspective, to talk about abortion access.

And interestingly, it’s also the way that polls the best. People who find themselves in these circumstances with their doctors talk about the issue of viability, which is a very straightforward thing. It’s the point at which you understand that the fetus will survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical intervention. And that is a fungible place. It depends on what’s wrong with the fetus, what’s wrong with a woman, and what sort of medical care is available.

The opponents like to underscore that is a weakness in the issue. I actually think it’s a strength. I think it’s all the more reason why it’s a decision that should be made by a doctor, made by a medical team, made by a patient and her family with their health care provider and not arbitrarily defined somewhere far, far away by people who don’t understand the context of any particular situation or case.

So the first part of the sentence is about viability. And then the second part of the sentence is to protect the patient’s health as determined by a health care provider. 

Correct. And the second sentence is a very straightforward sentence. Under the Florida standard, a constitutional amendment has to be single-subject. There is language in the Florida Constitution that grants the authority to the Legislature to require parental notification before a minor receives abortion services. And so we included that second line to make sure that it was clear to the Florida Supreme Court and to voters that this was a single issue, and it didn’t affect that authority.

Ironically, it also makes it poll better, because it makes it very clear to people that we’re not asking them to throw up their hands and give up any sort of parental oversight over the lives of their children, and people in their families. And it’s a fabulous thing to be able to tell people so clearly what we want for them in such a succinct language.


I want to ask you about the opponents and what they are seizing on in the language. The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops is making two arguments. First, that abortions would be allowed at a point when a fetus can feel pain. And second, that it would legalize full-term abortions. How do you respond to that? 

There’s a lot of misinformation that we’re going to have to make sure that people understand. And once people understand the biology and the sociology behind pregnancy and childbirth, most people end up supporting our amendment. I don’t want to go too far down the gynecological-obstetric route here. But I can say that those are not concerns that we have. We don’t think that there’s science to support those positions.

And then the abortion “up to birth” thing is really just a misrepresentation of exactly what happens during pregnancy and childbirth. Third trimester abortions are just exceedingly rare. They’re well under 1 percent of abortions that are conducted in this country. They are always the result of truly tragic circumstances. So the only response I can have to anybody faced with the issue of a possible third trimester termination is that we all need to mind our businesses and have tremendous compassion for those people because they are dealing with an outrageous human tragedy, and they should have the privacy to do so with their medical team and their family and their faith leader. And I hope it never happens to me or anyone that I love.

Explain the other decision that the Florida Supreme Court issued on Monday, and what that means on a practical level for people in Florida.

So, interestingly, the same day that they published the ruling on our abortion access referendum, the Florida Supreme Court published its ruling on the constitutionality of the 15-week abortion ban that was passed by the Florida Legislature about 18 months ago. It does not include any exceptions for rape or incest. It was challenged immediately on the grounds that it violates the state of Florida’s right to privacy.

Not content with the 15-week abortion ban, the Florida Legislature reconvened for the following session, and passed a six-week abortion ban. Now, a six-week abortion ban is, for all intents and purposes, a total abortion ban. The vast majority of women have no idea that they’re even pregnant at six weeks. And so in the middle of this statewide referendum, we are given the opportunity to paint a pretty clear political picture about what the choice is. The choice is either total abortion ban or access to abortion before viability and when necessary to protect the patient’s health. And I think it’s a winner for us.

It’s a human tragedy. I would imagine over the next eight to 10 months, we’re going to start hearing horror stories like those we’ve been hearing out of Tennessee and out of Texas, where they have similarly banned abortion at these very, very early stages. And you’re going to hear stories of people bleeding out on the bathroom floors. You’re going to hear stories of women having to flee the state in order to get medical care.

I have no particular desire to see the women of Florida suffer from these barbaric circumstances. But I do have to acknowledge that it does help my movement show people in no uncertain terms exactly what the options are in front of them. It is a tremendous political opportunity on top of a horrifying human crisis.

When the six-week ban kicks in, what will the availability of medical abortions be in Florida?

That’s still very to-be-determined. Of course, we have this entire group out there now that wants to revive the Comstock Act back from 1873 and make the mailing of anything it considers “pornographic” — which, traditionally, includes birth control — illegal. The six-week abortion ban contains language in it that is somewhat vague, but does make anybody who facilitates an abortion an accessory to a crime.

So the question then becomes, who’s facilitating? How are they facilitating? What counts as facilitating? One of the consistent strategies that I’m seeing come out of this very extreme Florida branch of politics is writing these laws in ways that are quite broad and quite vague in order to intimidate people into not acting. Of course health care providers don’t want to be arrested for serving their patients; husbands don’t want to be arrested for driving their wives to a clinic or to a doctor’s appointment; and anybody who really cares about not ending up inside a courtroom and being accused of a terrible crime while providing healthcare to somebody is, I think, necessarily going to be stumped here. They want to make it as confusing, as frightening and as intimidating as possible.

I think it’s entirely likely that we’re going to see people arrested, we’re going to see people accused of and defending themselves for simply helping their family members.

Among all the possible arguments for Biden, Democrats only need to make one

CNN Opinion:

Among all the possible arguments for Biden, Democrats only need to make one

Opinion by Ana Marie Cox – April 5, 2024

Florida Supreme Court votes on abortion restrictions

Editor’s Note: Ana Marie Cox is a political journalist and writer in Austin. The views expressed here are her own. Read more opinion on CNN.

To win in November, President Joe Biden and other Democrats must seize upon and never let up on abortion rights as their most important policy focus. Democrats’ historical reticence to give a full-throated and explicit defense of abortion rights or to take advantage of congressional majorities to enshrine those rights into law kept the door open for Republicans to find a way to overturn Roe v Wade. The painful irony is that because of this policy mismanagement, Democrats have transmuted the hardship and suffering of hundreds of thousands of would-be abortion-seekers into a wave of ballot-box endorsements for reproductive choice. And in no place is this alchemy more vital to Biden’s chances of sealing a second term than in the Sunshine State.

Ana Marie Cox - <em>Faith Fonseca</em>
Ana Marie Cox – Faith Fonseca

This week, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled to both allow the state’s six-week abortion ban to stand and to allow a state-wide vote in November to enshrine abortion as a right protected by the state’s constitution. These decisions put a spotlight on the nexus of real policy outcomes and political theatrics underpinning the 2024 contest.

The theatrics have played out with once-ardent anti-abortion Republican politicians suddenly forced to reckon with the overwhelmingly unpopular outcomes that recognizing “fetal personhood” — an official GOP position for decades — creates. In the wake of the Alabama Supreme Court decision applying the logic of personhood to in vitro fertilization, the state legislature immediately passed legislation to protect the IVF process that relies on embryos. But that wasn’t enough to keep an Alabama IVF clinic from announcing that it was discontinuing the procedure.

Former President Donald Trump, canny as always about polling, continues to try to thread an unsteady needle and is once again trying to postpone his day of reckoning by saying that he’s going to be making a statement about abortion next week after being pushed to respond to Florida’s six-week ban. His campaign adviser Brian Hughes said Trump endorses “preserving life” but carefully avoided, for now, a position on the ballot measure or six-week policy itself. As Hughes put it: “He supports states’ rights because he supports the voters’ right to make decisions for themselves.” The statement ended with the only rhetorical gambit left to Republicans, the same lie about the Democratic position that the GOP has used for decades: “Where President Trump thinks voters should have the last word, Biden and many Democrats want to allow abortion up until the moment of birth and force taxpayers to pay for it,” another spokesperson said.

It would be more accurate to say, “Where the Democrats think women should have the last word, Trump and many Republicans want to take decisions about abortion out of their hands and force them to pay for it.”

On the ground, political performance runs up against people’s lives and it’s the Republican position of fetal personhood and only the most narrow exceptions to abortion access that reveal themselves to be radical political stances with radical outcomes: There are now millions of people who are living under the anti-abortion laws the Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade made possible. I count in that number not just the women forced to face a pregnancy resulting from sexual assault and not just the women who have been prevented from ending a pregnancy that threatens their physical well-being, but both those groups’ loved ones and their communities. Then there are, of course, the women who have a child they would prefer not to have (post-Dobbs, birth rates went up in states with abortion bans by about 2%). Now we must consider adding to that population some of those who wish to turn to IVF procedures to create families.

Nationally, Democrats keep wanting to make All the Arguments for themselves: the “Biden economy,” the specter of “MAGA extremists” and, comically, “no, Biden’s not that old!” But among all possible arguments for Biden, Democrats really need to only make one. Advancing abortion rights, combined with the inarguable truth that Republicans only want to restrict them more, will bring out the young voters whose enthusiasm is wavering and the suburban women who held their noses to vote for Trump last time.

This calculus may seem callous, but the extraordinary number of people damaged by GOP abortion restrictions is the key to a Biden second term. The Biden team seems to recognize this unprecedented if morally unwelcome opportunity; in March, Kamala Harris became the first vice president to do more on the campaign trail than talk about the existence of abortion clinics. She visited one. More than that, she talked about the corporeal circumstances of abortion, mentioning uteruses, fibroids and women miscarrying in toilets. These are the exact terms and vivid images that have been mostly missing from Democratic rhetoric, even as they are an unavoidable part of women’s lives.

This bluntness is in part possible because it’s now unavoidable. There is the growing cohort who have experienced the reality of bodies denied an abortion, of course. Beyond them, news outlets reporting on cases like that of Kate Cox, who had to leave her state of Texas to get an abortion in a life-threatening pregnancy. No one needs to be dainty about the word “abortion” anymore. No one needs to assure voters that they are for “choice” but against “abortion on demand” as Biden did as recently as February.

Via the ballot box, voters keep telling Democrats that this aggressiveness is what they want, though – as could be true in Florida – the electoral victories have come at the expense of having the right to abortion taken away. Marilyn Lands credited her willingness to tell her own unvarnished abortion experience and campaign on the lack of abortion access in Alabama for her special statehouse election victory that flipped the once-safe Republican seat.

That abortion access keeps winning during special elections and off-year contests in red states — prompting unusually high turn-out as well — should tell Democrats just how central and unequivocal their message should be. In Florida, Democrats can and should be especially bold. Abortion will be on the ballot next to Biden. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ political victories have come in part because he is able to rouse his voters in ways Democrats have not (running Charlie Crist against him in the last election veers close to malpractice in that regard). The rolling out of the DeSantis-endorsed six-week ban will hurt people. Democrats would not be ghoulish to capitalize on this; indeed, it is a moral imperative that they insist on capitalizing on it.

Since the fall of Roe, voters have championed reproductive access over and over and the Biden campaign has responded with welcome if belated forthrightness. As the Florida Supreme Court hands down two decisions that place access front and center in the most valuable (and barely still swinging) swing state in the country, Democrats’ long-time reluctance to embrace without reservation or exception expansive abortion access – to talk about it frankly and specifically – puts them at risk of losing their once-reliable advantage among female voters and young people, and with it, the presidency.

Donald Trump’s Insatiable Bloodlust

Maureen Dowd

By Maureen Dowd – April 6, 2024

Donald Trump, standing in a suit at a lectern, holds up his hands, with a huge flag in the background.
Credit…Mark Peterson for The New York Times

An earthquake. An eclipse. A bridge collapse. A freak blizzard. A biblical flood. Donald Trump leading in battleground states.

Apocalyptic vibes are stirred by Trump’s violent rhetoric and talk of blood baths.

If he’s not elected, he bellowed in Ohio, there will be a blood bath in the auto industry. At his Michigan rally on Tuesday, he said there would be a blood bath at the border, speaking from a podium with a banner reading, “Stop Biden’s border blood bath.” He has warned that, without him in the Oval, there will be an “Oppenheimer”-like doomsday; we will lose World War III and America will be devastated by “weapons, the likes of which nobody has ever seen before.”

“And the only thing standing between you and its obliteration is me,” Trump has said.

An unspoken Trump threat is that there will be a blood bath again in Washington, like Jan. 6, if he doesn’t win.

That is why he calls the criminals who stormed the Capitol “hostages” and “unbelievable patriots.” He starts some rallies with a dystopian remix of the national anthem, sung by the “J6 Prison Choir,” and his own reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.

In “Macbeth,” Shakespeare uses blood imagery to chart the creation of a tyrant. Those words echo in Washington as Ralph Fiennes stars in a thrilling Simon Godwin production of “MacBeth” for the Shakespeare Theater Company, opening Tuesday.

“The raw power grab that excites Lady Macbeth and incites her husband to regicide feels especially pertinent now, when the dangers of autocracy loom over political discussions,” Peter Marks wrote in The Washington Post about the production with Fiennes and Indira Varma (the lead sand snake in “Game of Thrones.”)

Trump’s raw power grab after his 2020 loss may have failed, but he’s inflaming his base with language straight out of Macbeth’s trip to hell.

“Blood will have blood,” as Macbeth says. One of the witches, the weird sisters, urges him, “Be bloody, bold and resolute.”

Another weird sister, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is predicting end times. “God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent,” she tweeted on Friday. “Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come. I pray that our country listens.”

Like Macbeth, Trump crossed a line and won’t turn back. The Irish say, “You may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.” Macbeth killed his king, then said: “I am in blood. Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”

The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey reported that since Trump put his daughter-in-law in charge of the Republican National Committee, prospective employees are asked if they think the election was stolen. Republicans once burbled on about patriotism and defending America. Now denying democracy is a litmus test for employment in the Formerly Grand Old Party.

My Irish immigrant father lived through the cruel “No Irish Need Apply” era. I’m distraught that our mosaic may shatter.

But Trump embraces Hitleresque phrases to stir racial hatred. He has talked about immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country.” Last month, he called migrants “animals,” saying, “I don’t know if you call them ‘people,’ in some cases. They’re not people, in my opinion.”

Trump’s obsession with bloodlines was instilled by his father, the son of a German immigrant. He thinks there is good blood and bad blood, superior blood and inferior blood. Fred Trump taught his son that their family’s success was genetic, reminiscent of Hitler’s creepy faith in eugenics.

“The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,” the Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio told PBS. “They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.”

Trump has been talking about this as far back as an “Oprah” show in 1988. The “gene believer” brought it up in a 2020 speech in Minnesota denouncing refugees.

“A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe?” he told the crowd about their pioneer lineage, adding: “The racehorse theory, you think we’re so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.”

As Stephen Greenblatt writes in “Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics,” usurpers don’t ascend to the throne without complicity. Republican enablers do all they can to cozy up to their would-be dictator, even introducing a bill to rename Dulles airport for Trump. Democrats responded by introducing a bill to name a prison in Florida for Trump.

“Why, in some circumstances, does evidence of mendacity, crudeness or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers?” Greenblatt asked. “Why do otherwise proud and self-respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency?”

Like Macbeth’s castle, the Trump campaign has, as Lady Macbeth put it, “the smell of blood,” and “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten” it.