Trump shows public support for embattled defense secretary pick Pete Hegseth
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump on Friday made his first public show of support for Pete Hegseth, his embattled pick for defense secretary, since Hegseth began making the rounds on Capitol Hill speaking to Republican senators amid misconduct allegations.
“Pete Hegseth is doing very well. His support is strong and deep,” Trump wrote on his social media platform.
“He was a great student – Princeton/Harvard educated – with a Military state of mind. He will be a fantastic, high energy, Secretary of Defense Defense, one who leads with charisma and skill. Pete is a WINNER, and there is nothing that can be done to change that,” Trump added.
The post comes after Trump’s public silence as Hegseth met with GOP senators every day this week in the face of new allegations of sexual impropriety, financial mismanagement, public drunkenness and other personal misconduct.
The New Yorker reported the claims over the weekend. ABC News has not independently confirmed the magazine’s account.
Hegseth has denied the accusations, but telling senators he’s a “changed” man and vowing not to drink alcohol should he be confirmed to head up the Pentagon.
ABC News previously reported Trump had not been working the phones for Hegseth as he did for Matt Gaetz, who similarly faced sexual assault allegations. Gaetz ultimately withdrew his name from consideration.
But Hegseth on Thursday vowed not to back down as he wrapped up sit-downs with senators who will be tasked with his confirmation.
“The conversations have been robust, candid at times,” he said. “There’s great questions on policy, personality, everything, so we are going to earn those votes, fighting all the way through the tape.”
His confirmation, though, remains far from certain. Republicans will have a narrow three-seat majority in the Senate next year.
Trump’s team, ABC News reported, was focused on figuring out where the nine female Republican senators stand on Hegseth. So far, one key female Republican on the Armed Services Committee — Joni Ernst — has notably not yet backed Hegseth. Two female senators — Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Katie Britt of Alabama — have endorsed Hegseth.
Several Republican senators have said they’d like to see background checks for Trump’s Cabinet picks.
Multiple sources, including a Trump transition official, have confirmed to ABC News that Hegseth will be getting a background check from the FBI. Hegseth informed the transition team earlier this week he’d be willing to get the check.
Hegseth’s attorney Tim Parlatore said Thursday on CNN that Hegseth’s name had been submitted to the FBI and that the FBI gave them the needed forms on Wednesday.
“I am expecting that the background check is going to take a lot of the false stories that have been circulated in the media and it’s going to put them completely to bed. I think that the surprise you’re going to find is how false all the reporting has been,” Parlatore said.
(WASHINGTON) — FBI Director Christopher Wray told employees at an internal town hall on Wednesday that he is resigning, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
He said he is stepping down at the end of the current Biden administration.
“After weeks of careful thought, I’ve decided the right thing for the Bureau is for me to serve until the end of the current Administration in January and then step down. My goal is to keep the focus on our mission — the indispensable work you’re doing on behalf of the American people every day. In my view, this is the best way to avoid dragging the Bureau deeper into the fray, while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important to how we do our work,” he said in his remarks.
“It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway — this is not easy for me. I love this place, I love our mission, and I love our people — but my focus is, and always has been, on us and doing what’s right for the FBI,” he said.
“When you look at where the threats are headed, it’s clear that the importance of our work – keeping Americans safe and upholding the Constitution — will not change. And what absolutely cannot, must not change is our commitment to doing the right thing, the right way, every time. Our adherence to our core values, our dedication to independence and objectivity, and our defense of the rule of law — those fundamental aspects of who we are must never change,” he said. “That’s the real strength of the FBI — the importance of our mission, the quality of our people, and their dedication to service over self. It’s an unshakeable foundation that’s stood the test of time, and cannot be easily moved. And it — you, the men and women of the FBI — are why the Bureau will endure and remain successful long into the future.”
Wray, who was appointed by President-elect Donald Trump and confirmed in August 2017, oversaw the agency in a “heightened threat environment” and number of high-profile cases, including the investigation of the man who appointed him.
As FBI director, Wray oversaw the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob, hundreds of Chinese espionage cases, the probes into Trump’s and President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents as well as thousands more criminal investigations.
Wray was nominated by Trump after he fired his predecessor, James Comey.
Republican critics have accused Wray’s FBI of political interference, a lack of transparency and a lack of responsiveness to Congress.
Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Wray on Dec. 9, expressing a “vote of no confidence” in Wray and his deputy director.
“For the good of the country, it’s time for you and your deputy to move on to the next chapter of your life,” Grassley writes.
Trump has picked Kash Patel to replace Wray at the FBI.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — A panel of three former President Donald Trump-appointed U.S. Court of Appeals judges heard oral arguments on Tuesday over a lower court ruling on a Mississippi election law that allows the state to continue counting mail-in absentee ballots if they’re received within five days of Election Day.
It’s a significant case for its potentially wide-ranging implications in other states — some pivotal battlegrounds — that currently allow elections officials to accept late-arriving ballots. If the Republicans who brought the case prevail in peeling back these mail-in voting provisions, the general election could become even closer across the country. This case is also considered by experts to be one of the likeliest election-related suits to reach the U.S. Supreme Court before Election Day.
Around 20 states, including Mississippi, count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day but are postmarked on or before. They include Nevada, Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, California and New York. Disqualifying late-arriving ballots would be a major change in those states.
National and statewide Republicans had sued Mississippi’s secretary of state and other election officials in January over the mail-in ballot policies of the Republican-leaning state, which adopted legislation in 2020 that permits mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and that arrive up until five days after to be accepted.
The Republican National Committee, Mississippi Republican Party and two individuals are seeking to overturn that COVID-era law. A similar challenge was brought by the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, which also testified on Tuesday.
In July, a district court rejected the lawsuit, concluding that Mississippi’s absentee ballot receipt deadline does not conflict with federal statutes.
On Tuesday, a panel of three Trump-appointed conservative judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — judges James Ho, Kyle Duncan and Andrew Oldham — heard the Republicans’ arguments to reverse that decision.
The arguments centered on a familiar Trump argument regarding elections: that Election Day is simply a “day” and not a prolonged voting period. The court considered precedents like RNC v. DNC, and federal laws like the Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.
GOP lawyer Conor Woodfin said on Tuesday that the “consummation date” for ballot receipt should not be up for “subjective” interpretation in each individual state — that Election Day should be the final day for acceptance.
“The original public meaning of Election Day is the day that ballots are received by election officials,” Woodfin said. “In Mississippi, it means the day for postmarking a ballot, in other states like Nevada and New Jersey, you don’t even need a postmark, but that’s not how courts interpret statutes.”
“The meaning of Election day is not up to the subjective views of each state. Instead, text and history tell us what those words mean and historical practice is especially important when applying words like ‘election’ that are rich with historical meaning,” he continued. “For decades after Congress established the uniform national election day, those words meant the day that ballots are received by election officials.”
Scott Stewart on behalf of the Mississippi Secretary of State said on Tuesday that the district court was correct to uphold Mississippi’s ballot receipt law that the 5th Circuit court should affirm the decision.
He said that the petitioners — when grappling with concepts like early voting — have been unable to “locate a single definition” on ballot receipt.
“My friends [on the other side] say that ballot receipt is the definitive Election Day act. That is quite a statement for a party that has been unable to locate a single definition that mentions ballot receipt. I’ve just never seen a plain text case prevail with that kind of an absence,” he said.
The Democratic National Committee as an intervener in the case also countered the Republican petitioners. Its counsel, Donald Verrilli, said the definition of “election” suggests that votes cast by Election Day would be qualifying.
“The meaning of the word ‘election,’ as the Supreme Court said… has been the same since the founding to today — and it is the final collective choice of an officer by qualified electors,” Verrilli said.
“So the day of the election is the day on which that final collective choice must be consummated. That is what it means. That is what our position rests on…their position departs dramatically from that meaning,” he added.
Verrilli was asked to expand upon the term “collective” in the definition.
“What final collective choice means is that the process requires that all votes that are going to go into the determination of who holds the office are cast by Election Day. It doesn’t say anything about the manner in which they are cast,” he said. “That is something that the Constitution delegates expressly to state officials with. Of course, federal backstop and states have made different policy choices about that very thing.”
The hearing on Tuesday comes as in-person and mail-in absentee ballots became available on Monday across Mississippi for the upcoming general election.
(WASHINGTON) — As the bipartisan group No Labels attempted to field a third-party independent bid in the 2024 presidential race, several of its opponents aggressively attempted to sabotage its operations in hopes of preventing the group from moving forward, according to a lawsuit the group has filed.
A lawsuit filed initially against NoLabels.com Inc. in the U.S. District Court of Delaware in December of 2023 alleges that some in the Democratic Party undertook deliberate efforts to undermine the group, ultimately forcing it to halt operations. No Labels is now seeking to recover monetary damages as a result.
NoLabels.com Inc., which was created to mimic the real No Labels website – NoLabels.org, is believed to be incorporated in Delaware, according to the suit.
Documents unsealed in the case allegedly show how a handful of Democratic strategists operating under the fake NoLabels.com banner attempted to use fear tactics to raise uncertainty among No Labels supporters and donors, drive skepticism in the media, and question the authenticity and scope of the centrist group. At one point, operatives even viciously targeted No Labels founder Nancy Jacobson, as well as candidates interested in serving on its “Unity Ticket.”
One document included a business deck orchestrated by a group of political operatives called the American Patriots Project (APP) to imitate No Labels’ website with the purchase of the NoLabels.com domain as well as Google search ads. According to the deck, the operatives attempted to mislead voters and paint the centrist group as Christo-nationalists and featured images of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaking on behalf of the group. The saboteurs’ goal was to imply that No Labels was a right-wing shadow effort. Furthermore, the proposal attempted to falsely fixate on “red meat issues” such as immigration and anti-abortion messaging.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Judge Gregory B. Williams issued a court order for the operatives to take down the NoLabels.com website; however, No Labels believes that there were more attempts to disavow their operations.
No Labels subpoenaed APP on Nov. 5 seeking to uncover more information.
Democratic strategists with ties to American Bridge — which calls itself the largest research, video tracking, and rapid response organization affiliated with the Democratic Party — also attempted to single out donors, according to a three-step proposal in one email listed in court documents. As donors engaged in conversation, strategists would suggest that their money was being mismanaged with inefficient or wasteful spending. These strategists also attempted to misinform the media about No Labels’ goals.
ABC News has reached out for comment to American Bridge but has not gotten a reply.
Earlier this week, No Labels leaders updated supporters on a Zoom call.
“We believe in democracy in this organization, and obviously some people didn’t want us to live democracy out the way we were living it,” Mike Rawlings, the group’s national convention chairman, told the call before tossing to Dan Webb, a No Labels board member, who updated supporters on the legal findings.
Webb notified supporters that they called on the Department of Justice to look into any potential illegal conduct.
“I think one of the defining stories will be that it’s just wrong for a group of elite donors, party operatives, media mouthpieces to actually decide that the way, the way we should protect democracy is to make sure we have less of it,” Webb said.
Most of the No Labels “family members” on the call were infuriated with the allegations and pleaded for national exposure, suggesting outlets like “60 Minutes” or Joe Rogan’s podcast to spread awareness. Overall, the call was an opportunity for supporters to air their grievances.
“I agree wholeheartedly with publicizing this as much as possible, and not making it seem like it’s just normal politics,” one supporter said.
“This is not acceptable; they’ve interfered with the democratic process here,” another supporter added.
Asked if the efforts were “just politics” or “dirty politics,” No Labels leaders suggested it went beyond that.
“I’m a strong believer in the First Amendment, and political speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment, but the law is also clear that you cannot violate the law and claim that even though you violated the law, you were just engaging in politics,” Webb said.
He continued, “I believe we did the right thing by reporting the information to the Department of Justice, and whatever the Department of Justice decides to do, they decide to do.”
One supporter suggested that the scandal sounded like Watergate and questioned whether it was worth pursuing lawsuits. Another supporter told No Labels leaders to focus on the Problem Solvers Caucus in Congress and dismiss the past.
“We should focus on the fact that no candidate received a majority in this election,” one supporter suggested. “Our need is to focus on fixing Congress. So I think we need to balance this very carefully and not focus on a way that distracts from one main issue, and casts us as being associated with the Trump administration.”
Back in April, the group halted its efforts when it was unable to find a candidate that had a credible path to winning with its bipartisan platform.
No Labels intended to offer a different choice than the presumptive presidential nominees at that time — incumbent President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump — to citizens who yearned for something new instead of a repeat of the 2020 election. As they entered the race in March, they suggested their internal polling showed more than 70% of Americans said they’d be open to another option.
The group intends to meet with supporters in Washington, D.C., in December to create a plan to deal with the new Congress and work with congressional leaders.
-ABC News’ Nicholas Kerr contributed to this report.
