Harris and Trump squabble over muted mics at upcoming debate

The campaigns of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are arguing in advance of their high-stakes Sept. 10 debate over whether microphones should be muted except for the candidate whose turn it is to speak.

While it's common for campaigns to quibble beforehand over debate mechanics, both Harris and Trump are under pressure to deliver a strong performance next month in Philadelphia. The first debate during this campaign led to President Joe Biden's departure from the race.

Trump on Sunday night raised the possibility that he might not show up on ABC, posting on his Truth Social network that he had watched the network's Sunday show with a “so-called Panel of Trump Haters” and posited, “why would I do the Debate against Kamala Harris on that network?” and urging followers to “Stay tuned!!”

The current dispute centers on the muting of microphones when a candidate isn't speaking, a condition both Biden and Trump accepted for their June debate hosted by CNN. Both sides are accusing the other of gaming the system to protect their candidate.

Biden’s campaign team made microphone muting a condition of its decision to accept any debates this year, and some aides now regret the decision, saying voters were shielded from hearing Trump’s outbursts during the debate. That move likely would not have helped the incumbent Democrat’s disastrous performance.

The Harris campaign now wants microphones to be live all the time, according to Harris spokesman Brian Fallon, who issued a statement needling Trump.

“Trump’s handlers prefer the muted microphone because they don’t think their candidate can act presidential for 90 minutes on his own,” Fallon said. Harris “is ready to deal with Trump’s constant lies and interruptions in real time. Trump should stop hiding behind the mute button.”

Trump spokesman Jason Miller retorted that the Republican nominee had “accepted the ABC debate under the exact same terms as the CNN debate." He alleged Harris’ representatives sought “a seated debate, with notes, and opening statements.”

Miller then took a shot at Harris not sitting for an interview or holding a news conference since Biden ended his reelection and endorsed her, arguing her campaign now wants “to give her a cheat sheet for the debate.”

The Harris campaign denied Miller's claim that she wanted notes or to be seated during the debate.

“I’d rather have it probably on,” Trump said Monday during a stop in the Washington area, when asked if he wanted microphones muted. “I didn't like it the last time, but it worked out fine,” he added, in terms of the policy during his debate with Biden.

“We agreed to the same rules — same rules, same specifications,” Trump noted, for his Sept. 10 debate with Harris. "And I think that’s probably what it should be.”

Asked how he was preparing for the debate, Trump responded, “I’m not. ... I think my whole life I’ve been preparing for a debate.”

Complicating the negotiations this year is that debates are being orchestrated on an ad hoc basis by host networks, as opposed to the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, through which debate rules were negotiated privately.

Microphones have been unmuted for both candidates for most of televised presidential debate history. The debate commission announced that its October 2020 debate would have microphones muted when candidates were not recognized to speak after the first Biden-Trump contest descended into a shouting match. The second 2020 debate with the microphone muting rules was widely celebrated for being more substantive than the earlier matchup.

Associated Press writers Zeke Miller and Colleen Long in Washington, and Jill Colvin in New York contributed to this report.

Meg Kinnard reported from Chapin, South Carolina, and can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP

This combination photo shows Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump at an event, Aug. 15, 2024, in Bedminster, N.J., left, and Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris at a campaign event in Raleigh, N.C., Aug. 16, 2024. (AP Photo)

Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., speaks during a debate, Oct. 7, 2020, in Salt Lake City, left, and Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks during a debate, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo)

This combination of photos taken at campaign rallies in Atlanta shows Vice President Kamala Harris on July 30, 2024, left, and Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump on Aug. 3. (AP Photo)

This combination photo shows Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaking during a presidential debate, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta, left, and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., speaking during a Democratic presidential primary debates, July 31, 2019, in Detroit. (AP Photo)

LONDON (AP) — A judge on Friday rejected plans for the United Kingdom’s first new coal mine in three decades, delivering a victory for climate groups who challenged the project's claim it would have zero impact on global emissions.

High Court Justice David Holgate's decision follows a June ruling by the U.K. Supreme Court that said planners reviewing oil well-drilling permits must consider the greenhouse gas emissions from burning the extracted oil.

“The assumption that the proposed mine would not produce a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, or would be a net zero mine, is legally flawed," Holgate said.

Friends of the Earth and South Lakes Action on Climate Change, a local group, challenged the government’s approval of the plan for the mine’s development in a coastal town in England’s northwest Cumbria area.

The developer, West Cumbria Mining, defended the proposal in court after the Labour government, which was elected to power in July, dropped its support for the project approved by their Conservative predecessors.

“This is fantastic news and a huge victory for our environment and everyone who has fought against this climate-damaging and completely unnecessary coal mine," said attorney Niall Toru of Friends of the Earth. “The case against it is overwhelming: it would have huge climate impacts, its coal isn’t needed and it harms the U.K.’s international reputation on climate."

The ruling sends the decision back to the government for reconsideration.

The mining company, which had promoted the project as a net-zero positive, said it would consider the ruling but declined to comment.

When the Conservatives approved the plan in 2022, environmentalists said it was a backward step and would make it harder to achieve a goal of generating 100% of electricity from clean energy sources by 2035 and reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The left-leaning Labour government has also distanced itself from its predecessor's emphasis on oil and gas exploration. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to increase wind power generation and pledged to not issue new oil drilling licenses in the North Sea.

The mine on the site of a shuttered chemical plant in Whitehaven, a town 340 miles (550 kilometers) northwest of London, would have extracted coking coal used in steelmaking rather than producing electricity.

Opponents said the coal would no longer be needed domestically as Britain's largest steelmaking operation in Port Talbot, Wales, owned by India’s Tata Steel, transitions from coal-fired blast furnaces to electric arc furnaces, which emit less carbon.

Follow AP’s coverage of the climate and environment: https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

FILE - An aerial view of the the site of a proposed new coal mine near the Cumbrian town of Whitehaven in northwest England, Monday, Oct. 4, 2021. A London judge rejected on Friday, Sept. 13, 2024, plans for the United Kingdom’s first new coal mine in three decades, delivering a victory Friday for climate groups who challenged the project's claim it would have zero impact on global emissions. (AP Photo/Jon Super, File)