Trump Threatens to Skip ABC Debate, Citing Network Bias

Former President Donald Trump has recently voiced strong criticism against ABC News, calling the network “FAKE NEWS” and raising doubts about his participation in an upcoming presidential debate hosted by ABC. This debate, scheduled for September 10, is the only one that both Trump’s campaign and Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign have thus far agreed to attend.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump lambasted ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl’s interview with Senator Tom Cotton, R-Ark., describing it as “ridiculous and biased.” He went further, denouncing the network’s commentators as a “Panel of Trump Haters.” Trump’s criticism centers on the belief that the network may unfairly influence the debate. He suggested that Donna Brazile, a contributor to ABC News, could potentially provide questions to Harris, alluding to the 2016 controversy where Brazile was accused of leaking debate questions to Hillary Clinton.

Trump also questioned the need to debate Harris on ABC News, implying that the network’s bias could compromise the fairness of the debate. He argued that Harris has declined opportunities to debate him on other networks such as Fox, NBC, CBS, and even CNN, suggesting that her reluctance might be strategic rather than substantive.

While Trump stopped short of confirming whether he will indeed skip the debate, he emphasized that ABC News has “a lot of questions to answer” and concluded his post with a cryptic “Stay tuned!” This uncertainty has sparked speculation and debate about whether Trump will follow through with his threat or if he will ultimately participate.

The ABC News debate is a critical moment in the presidential race, as it is the only debate agreed upon by both campaigns. Last week, Trump claimed that Harris “just informed us” of her refusal to participate in a Fox News debate scheduled for September 4. However, this claim is complicated by the fact that Harris’ campaign had never publicly agreed to participate in that debate. Earlier in the month, Harris’ campaign had declared that “the debate about debates is over” and expressed the vice president’s willingness to participate in two debates against Trump. The campaign indicated that the second debate would be contingent on Trump’s participation in the ABC News debate.

Recent weeks have seen Harris and her campaign mocking Trump for his hesitancy to engage in the ABC News debate, despite his previous agreement to participate. Trump’s campaign, however, has argued that the debate schedule he agreed to is no longer relevant following President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race. In response, Trump proposed an alternative debate schedule, challenging Harris to three debates: the ABC debate, one on NBC, and another on Fox News.

The debate over the debate schedule highlights a significant divide between the two campaigns. Trump has consistently advocated for the first debate to be held on Fox News, a network known for its favorable coverage of him. In contrast, the Harris campaign insists on sticking with the ABC News debate on September 10 as the initial debate. Trump’s repeated attacks on ABC News as biased and “fake news” underscore the contentious nature of the debate negotiations.

In a related development, the running mates for both candidates have also been engaged in their own debate negotiations. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Harris’ running mate, and Senator JD Vance, R-Ohio, Trump’s VP pick, have agreed to a single debate on October 1, hosted by CBS News. Vance had proposed an additional debate on CNN on September 18, but this offer was reportedly rejected by the Harris campaign.

The debate scheduling drama reflects the broader tensions and strategic maneuvering characteristic of the current presidential race. With Trump’s outspoken criticism of ABC News and his proposal for a revised debate schedule, the future of the debate on September 10 remains uncertain. Both campaigns continue to navigate the complex dynamics of debate negotiations, as each side seeks to leverage their strategic advantages in the lead-up to the election.