LIVE - Updated at 16:12
Trump team to submit response to justice department appeal - follow all the latest politics news.
Outrage over the end of Roe v Wade has pushed some Republicans to soften their abortion stances as they look to court voters in the upcoming midterm elections, Maya Yang reports:
A growing number of Republicans are changing their positions on abortions since the fall of Roe v Wade as midterm elections approach in the US, signaling a softened shift from their previously staunch anti-abortion stances.
Since the supreme court overturned the federal right to abortion in June, many Republicans are adopting more compromised positions in attempts to win votes in key states through a slew of changes in messaging on websites, advertisements and public statements.
The moves comes amid a ferocious backlash to the decision that has seen Democrat hopes in the midterm elections revived and even see a solidly red state like Kansas vote in a referendum to keep some abortion rights.
Related: 'A wakeup call': more Republicans are softening staunch anti-abortion stance
Following a historic term that will be remembered for a series of conservative decisions including the end of nationwide abortion rights, the supreme court's chief justice has responded to critics that say the jurors are risking their legitimacy, The Guardian's Maya Yang reports:
US supreme court chief justice John Roberts has defended his conservative-leaning bench from attacks over its decision in June to overturn federal abortion rights, as US vice-president Kamala Harris launched a fierce attack on what she called today's "activist court".
Roberts, in his first public appearance since the bombshell ruling to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision, warned against linking contentious decisions with court legitimacy, saying at an event on Friday night: "The court has always decided controversial cases and decisions have always been subject to intense criticism, and that is entirely appropriate."
But in her first sit-down interview with a TV network since becoming vice-president, Harris told NBC News that she now believes the supreme court is an "activist court" after the institution took away nationwide abortion rights.
Related: John Roberts defends supreme court as Kamala Harris lashes out at Roe ruling
The January 6 committee is unlikely to continue its work in 2023, particularly if Republicans win a majority in the House of Representatives. But that doesn't mean the party is going to ignore the attack entirely.
Politico reports that the GOP is considering launching its own January 6 committee if it wins control of the House, but this one will avoid looking into the actions of Donald Trump and instead focus on security breaches that led to the attack. Here's more from Politico's report:
While past investigations by the Senate and Capitol Police inspector general have thoroughly explored many of those areas and made a laundry list of recommendations to bolster security, not to mention a forthcoming report from the Democratic-run Jan. 6 select committee, House GOP lawmakers are determined to run their own, Trump-free inquiry. It's a contradictory turn for a conference that has struggled for a successful message defending Trump against revelations already uncovered by the select panel, instead largely urging Washington to move on. But after two years of being on the outside looking in -Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy pulled his picks from the panel after Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two of them - House Republicans are eager to flip the script. "I think it's been very well-documented that there were significant intelligence and communications failures on Jan. 6. It's not the first time we've had those issues," Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), who voted to certify President Joe Biden's Electoral College win, said in an interview. "We have to stop that." Though House Republicans have stayed almost completely out of the ongoing Jan. 6 probe, they've quietly laid the groundwork for changes to the Capitol's security apparatus that would take effect much more quickly than the investigations they plan to mount. For example, they want to get rid of the metal detectors installed around the House floor after Jan. 6 that have fueled GOP ire and resulted in hefty fines for lawmakers who tried to dodge them. They are also eager to reopen the Capitol complex, which still has restrictions in place after shuttering at the start of the pandemic. Armstrong noted while many of his colleagues will look back at Jan. 6, his focus is on how the building operates moving forward on a "general 11 a.m. on a Wednesday."
While past investigations by the Senate and Capitol Police inspector general have thoroughly explored many of those areas and made a laundry list of recommendations to bolster security, not to mention a forthcoming report from the Democratic-run Jan. 6 select committee, House GOP lawmakers are determined to run their own, Trump-free inquiry.
It's a contradictory turn for a conference that has struggled for a successful message defending Trump against revelations already uncovered by the select panel, instead largely urging Washington to move on. But after two years of being on the outside looking in -Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy pulled his picks from the panel after Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two of them - House Republicans are eager to flip the script.
"I think it's been very well-documented that there were significant intelligence and communications failures on Jan. 6. It's not the first time we've had those issues," Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), who voted to certify President Joe Biden's Electoral College win, said in an interview. "We have to stop that."
Though House Republicans have stayed almost completely out of the ongoing Jan. 6 probe, they've quietly laid the groundwork for changes to the Capitol's security apparatus that would take effect much more quickly than the investigations they plan to mount.
For example, they want to get rid of the metal detectors installed around the House floor after Jan. 6 that have fueled GOP ire and resulted in hefty fines for lawmakers who tried to dodge them. They are also eager to reopen the Capitol complex, which still has restrictions in place after shuttering at the start of the pandemic. Armstrong noted while many of his colleagues will look back at Jan. 6, his focus is on how the building operates moving forward on a "general 11 a.m. on a Wednesday."
In their filing, lawyers for Donald Trump have downplayed the security risks of storing documents at Mar-a-Lago, and said there's no evidence any secrets stored there were improperly shared.
"There is no indication any purported 'classified records' were disclosed to anyone. Indeed, it appears such 'classified records,' along with the other seized materials, were principally located in storage boxes in a locked room at Mar-a-Lago, a secure, controlled access compound utilized regularly to conduct the official business of the United States during the Trump Presidency, which to this day is monitored by the United States Secret Service," they wrote in the 21-page document.
The lawyers also avoid the question of whether any of the documents found at Mar-a-Lago were actually classified or otherwise meant to be kept secret. "The Government has not proven these records remain classified. That issue is to be determined later." However, that statement appears to contradict Trump, who has argued that he declassified the documents found at Mar-a-Lago.
Lawyers for former president Donald Trump have submitted their counterargument to the justice department's attempt to halt a federal judge's order preventing them from reviewing documents taken from Mar-a-Lago.
The filing is the latest in the squabble over the special master Trump wants appointed to sift through the documents, which the government has objected to because it stops them from reading the materials seized from the former president's south Florida estate.
You can read the filing here.
More Americans than you might think have an affinity for unelected leaders, according to new data from the Axios-Ipsos Two Americas Index.
The survey shows that anti-democratic views exist among minorities of both Republicans and Democrats, with 33% of voters surveyed agreeing with the statement "Strong, unelected leaders are better than weak elected ones". That includes 31% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans.
"The findings from this poll shatter the myth that Americans overwhelmingly agree on a common set of democratic values around checks and balances on elected leaders, protection of minority rights and freedom of speech," Axios wrote, adding that the data also runs counter to president Joe Biden's insistence that Trump supporters pose the biggest threat to democracy.
Democrats outpolled Republicans on the question of "Presidents should be able to remove judges whose decisions go against the national interest", with 29% of GOP voters agreeing with that against 42% of Democrats - perhaps a reflection of outrage over recent decisions by the conservative-dominated supreme court.
A significant 38% of voters polled agreed with the statement "Government should side with the majority over ethnic/religious minority rights", with Republicans and Democrats drawing about even in support.
Over the weekend, vice-president Kamala Harris continued to push Democrats' message that the upcoming midterm elections were about far more than just which party controls Congress, as Ed Pilkington reports:
Kamala Harris warned on Sunday that the midterm elections in November would determine whether the "age-old sanctity" of the right to vote would be protected in the US or whether "so-called extremist leaders around the country" would continue to restrict access to the ballot box.
With just 56 days to go until the elections, and with the paper-thin Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress, the vice-president said that "everything is on the line in these elections".
In an interview with NBC News' Meet the Press, she said that the country was facing a rising domestic extremism threat.
"I think it is very dangerous and I think it is very harmful, and it makes us weaker," she said.
Related: Kamala Harris says 'everything on the line' in midterm elections
The department of justice's investigation into the government secrets found at Mar-a-Lago ground to a halt after a Trump-appointed federal judge last week granted an order for a special master to oversee the documents.
The government is demanding that its access to the documents be restored, or it will take the matter up to a higher court. Trump's lawyers are expected to make their counterargument in the filing due at 10 am.
It's a tortuous case, and here are more details from The Guardian's Hugo Lowell about just what the government is asking:
The filings amounted to a forceful response against the decision by the judge - a Trump appointee - to give unusually deferential treatment to Trump on account of his status as a former president. The justice department focused on the classified documents in its motion to stay the order barring it from reviewing the seized materials, arguing that Trump did not have "possessory interest" for the records - the key legal standard at issue - and were themselves the subject of the investigation. Even if Trump attempted to make an executive privilege argument to set aside the classified documents from the evidence cache, the government argued, he could not say that he had a "possessory interest" for classified documents that belonged to the state.
The filings amounted to a forceful response against the decision by the judge - a Trump appointee - to give unusually deferential treatment to Trump on account of his status as a former president.
The justice department focused on the classified documents in its motion to stay the order barring it from reviewing the seized materials, arguing that Trump did not have "possessory interest" for the records - the key legal standard at issue - and were themselves the subject of the investigation.
Even if Trump attempted to make an executive privilege argument to set aside the classified documents from the evidence cache, the government argued, he could not say that he had a "possessory interest" for classified documents that belonged to the state.
Meanwhile, the Senate intelligence committee wants its own briefing on what was found at Mar-a-Lago. "Some of the documents involved human intelligence, and if that information got out people will die," Mark Warner, the committee's Democratic chair, said on Sunday. "If there were penetration of our signals intelligence, literally years of work could be destroyed."
But the judge's order also means it's unclear when that briefing could happen.
Good morning, US politics blog readers. Lawyers for Donald Trump are up against a 10am ET deadline to submit their response to the government's appeal of a judge's order allowing a special master to handle documents taken from Mar-a-Lago. The filing will be the latest - but certainly not the last - in the legal wrangling over the FBI's search of Trump's Florida resort last month, and what they can do with the documents they found. Meanwhile, Congress is back in session, with Democrats looking to make the most of what may be their last few months controlling both the House and Senate ahead of November midterm elections that will decide control of the chambers.
Here's what else is happening today:
President Joe Biden is heading to Boston, where he will deliver remarks on both last year's infrastructure investment bill at 12.45pm, and on his administration's "goal of ending cancer as we know it" at 4pm.
Congress has a ton on its plate, including a new spending agreement to keep federal agencies open, a request from the White House for $47bn for everything from Ukraine aid to Covid relief, and a bill that would head off efforts - mulled by Trump - to make federal employees easier to fire.
Top administration officials are in Mexico City for the US Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue between the two major trading partners, including secretary of state Antony Blinken and commerce secretary Gina Raimondo.