John Bolton says Trump removed his Secret Service detail
Marlene Awaad/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has terminated Secret Service protection for his former national security adviser John Bolton, Bolton said in a post on X Tuesday afternoon.
“Notwithstanding my criticisms of President Biden’s national security policies, he nonetheless made the decision to extend that protection to me in 2021. The Justice Department filed criminal charges against an Iranian Revolutionary Guard official in 2022 for attempting to hire a hit man to target me. That threat remains today,” Bolton wrote. “The American people can judge for themselves which President made the right call.”
The White House has not commented on Bolton’s claims.
Bolton worked as Trump’s national security adviser from 2018 to 2019 and was frequently at odds with the president. After he left office, Bolton was vocal about his criticisms of Trump’s policies, including in a 2020 memoir in which he claimed the president was “stunningly uninformed,” ignorant of basic facts and easily manipulated by foreign adversaries.
At the time of the book’s release, Bolton told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz that Trump was “not fit for office” and didn’t have “the competence to carry out the job.”
Trump has lashed out at Bolton since leaving office in social media posts and interviews.
On Monday, he signed an executive order that called for Bolton to lose any security clearance he might still hold.
The executive order accused Bolton of publishing a memoir that “was rife with sensitive information drawn from his time in government,” with the order adding that the book’s publication “created a grave risk that classified material was publicly exposed.”
Bolton has denied disclosing any classified information in the book, and though a federal judge was skeptical of that, no charges were ever filed.
(WASHINGTON) — ABC projects that Democrat Adam Gray will win the race for California’s 13th Congressional District, unseating incumbent Republican John Duarte and flipping the final unresolved seat in the 2024 election.
With all 435 House races projected, ABC News estimates Republicans will hold 220 seats and Democrats 215 in the 119th Congress.
“People are excited about what we were able to achieve in electing another Republican House majority, keeping the majority,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said Wednesday morning.
But it’s not clear how vacancies — or, illness or other absences — will impact the day-to-day division of power when the House convenes on Jan. 3.
President-elect Donald Trump initially tapped three House Republicans for positions in his upcoming administration: Florida Reps. Matt Gaetz and Mike Waltz, and New York Rep. Elise Stefanik. Gaetz has already resigned from Congress and withdrew last month from consideration to serve as President-elect Donald Trump’s attorney general. And though he won reelection to his seat last month, he said he won’t serve another term.
Republicans could have a 217-215 majority while their seats are vacant — the narrowest GOP majority in history — and special elections to fill those seats can take months to complete.
In this case, any single Republican can hold Johnson’s agenda hostage: Losing just one Republican on a vote would result in a 216-216 tie.
But several elderly Democrats have missed votes recently, which could give Republicans a little more breathing room next year.
In California’s 13th District, Duarte conceded to Gray on Tuesday, according to the Turlock Journal.
“I’m a citizen legislator, and I didn’t plan on being in Congress forever,” Duarte told the newspaper. “But whenever I think I can make a difference, I’ll consider public service in different forms, including running for Congress again.”
Gray released a victory statement on X Tuesday evening, extending his gratitude and saying the “final results confirm this district is ready for independent and accountable leadership that always puts the Valley’s people ahead of partisan politics.”
-ABC News’ Marilyn Heck and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — After meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump appeared ambivalent about the debate over whether to craft two legislative attempts to reshape fiscal policy for his agenda or settle on one sweeping package in an “all-in” approach.
Trump told reporters that he had “a great meeting” with the senators, although it appeared that the closed-door meeting that lasted more than 90 minutes did not lock down an agreement on how to proceed.
“There’s great unity,” Trump said. “I think there’s a lot of talk about two [bills], and there’s a lot of talk about one, but it doesn’t matter. The end result is the same. We’re going to get something done that’s going to be reducing taxes and creating a lot of jobs and all of the other things that you know about.”
Despite Trump’s comments, senators in the room heard Trump loud and clear: His preference, though he’s open to alternative ideas, is one “big, beautiful bill” to deal with many of his legislative priorities in a single swoop.
But just because senators heard him doesn’t mean they agree with him.
There was hope going into tonight’s meeting with Trump, the Senate’s first since he won the presidential race in November, that it could bring the Senate, which has largely favored a two-bill approach, and the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson prefers a one-bill approach, into one line of thinking on the matter.
Senators leaving the room Wednesday night seemed unmoved.
“It’s no mystery we’re advocating for two,” Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said as he departed.
There were a number of senators, including Trump allies like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who forcefully made the case for a two-bill solution while in the room with Trump. Cruz and his allies want one bill to address border security, military spending and energy. A second bill addressing tax policy could come later, they said.
With little to no support expected from Democrats, Republicans plan to push forward through “reconciliation” — a fast-track process limited to spending and revenue legislation that needs only a majority rather than the 60-vote threshold in the Senate needed to pass legislation.
While the debate might seem in the weeds, it could have serious implications for Trump’s agenda. Bills passed through reconciliation give Republicans more wiggle room to pass certain measures that Democrats oppose. But these bills are cumbersome, bound by a number of rules about what may and may not be included, and will require the near-unanimous support of Republicans.
Senate Republicans continue to break with Trump and Johnson on the issue because they believe they can notch a win early in Trump’s presidency by breaking the package into two chunks.
“I expressed vigorously, as did numerous other people that the best path to success is winning two major victories rather than putting all the eggs in one basket and risking — a very real risk — of it not getting the votes to pass,” Cruz said. “I strongly believe the path that makes sense is to take up two bills. Why? Because that unifies Republicans. We can get that passed. We could have a major victory early on, and then to move to extending the tax cuts.”
Cruz said there was “complete consensus” among the senators on a two-part solution. “Not a single senator disagreed.”
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W. Va., who told reporters she served as the moderator for the meeting, said Trump was listening intently to their suggestions but she believes two bills provide the most viable path to victory.
“The two-bill approach that [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune had liked, I think is generally the direction the Senate has been wanting to go to get that quick victory,” Capito said. “I think there’s a lot of discussion that’s going to go on. What can the House pass? What does the Speaker think? So he [Trump] heard from us and from our leader that a two-bill strategy is very much alive over here and something we’re still very interested in. So no decisions were made.”.
Capito seemed uncertain if there would be cohesion with Trump moving forward.
“I don’t know — we’ll see,” she said, adding, “I think, you know, the leaders will get together with the president and they’ll make those decisions.”
Republican Whip John Barrasso will be a key part of rounding up votes for whatever package is ultimately advanced and he also sees two bills as the right direction to go.
“We think there’s a lot of advantages to get an early win and to focus immediately on the border, on energy and on the strong military,” Barrasso said.
Barrasso said he was there when the Senate used this same fast-track budget tool to implement the Trump tax cuts in 2017. That took time, he said.
“There’s a lot of detail to be done with that, and so that’s going to take awhile” he said. “I think we can much more quickly deal with the border, energy, and military funding.”
Still, Trump continues to prefer the one-bill approach backed by Johnson, senators said.
“I think he’s still open to whatever can work. I think there seems to be movement from the House to do one, and so I think that’s the way he leans,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said.
Another option that was floated was holding a “horse race” which would see the House originating a sweeping proposal that includes tax policy as its base while the Senate originates a more narrowly tailored bill that just includes border and energy reform then see which package gains more momentum.
“I said, ‘Well, Mister President, you love a horse race, why don’t you set it up as a horse race? And then whatever works best is great,'” said Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. “HIs preference is one bill, but I think he’s open to it.”
Trump reiterated his preference for one bill when he spoke to reporters on Tuesday, but said he could live with two.
“Well, I like one big, beautiful bill, and I always have, I always will, he said. But if two is more certain [to pass], it does go a little bit quicker because you can do the immigration stuff early,” he said.
Johnson said he hopes to have a bill ready by the first week in April, but it remains to be seen if he can get fiscal conservatives in his conference, who have long opposed all-in-one bills like the one Johnson is proposing, on board.
The speaker pushed back on Wednesday about the one-bill approach being a kitchen sink approach.
“This is not an omnibus spending bill, but appropriation,” Johnson said. “This is reducing spending, which is an objective we talked about. I’ll keep reiterating this: that just because the debt limit is raised, to give stability the bond markets and to send a message around the world that we will pay the nation’s debt. We are doggedly determined to decrease the size of scope of government and to limit spending, cut spending so you can you’ll see both of those things happen simultaneously.”
Johnson also intends to handle the debt limit in the reconciliation bill — without Democratic support.
“That way, as the Republican Party, the party in charge of both chambers, we again get to determine the details of that. If it runs through the regular order, regular process… then you have to have both parties negotiating. And we feel like we are in better stead to do it ourselves,” he said Tuesday.
But it remains to be seen whether Johnson can sell the fiscal conservatives in his conference on that idea. They nearly derailed the short-term government funding bill to avert a shutdown last month after Trump demanded that it dealt with the debt ceiling.
Trump will meet with groups of House Republicans at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida this weekend.
“He’s bringing in big groups of House Republicans to Mar-a-Lago over the weekend three days in a row to meet with and talk with all of our team members about what’s ahead of us and the challenges and how we can accomplish all this together,” Johnson said, though the speaker is not expected to attend.
(WASHINGTON) — The House will vote at 1 p.m. Tuesday on the Laken Riley Act as its first piece of legislation of the 119th Congress.
Reintroduced by Georgia Rep. Mike Collins, a Republican, the legislation pins Laken Riley’s death on the Biden administration’s open-border policies and grants power to attorneys general to sue the federal government if they can show their states are being harmed over failure to implement national immigration policies. The measure also allows states to sue the Department of Homeland Security for harm caused to citizens allegedly due to illegal immigration.
“If you polled the populace and the voters, they would tell you that that was the top of the list, and we have a lot to do there to fix it. It’s an absolute disaster because of what has happened over the last four years, and the Laken Riley Act is a big part of that,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday.
The bill was named after Riley, a nursing student who was murdered by illegal immigrant Jose Ibarra while jogging on campus at the University of Georgia. Ibarra was sentenced to life in prison for the murder.
“The only thing President Biden did after Laken’s tragic death was apologize for calling her murderer an illegal,” Johnson added. “That’s outrageous. We all know the real victim here was young Laken. There are real consequences to policy decisions. This one was deadly.”
The House previously passed the bill in March by a vote of 251-170, with 37 Democrats voting in favor. The bill is expected to pass again with bipartisan support.
“When we brought this bill forward last Congress, shockingly, amazingly to me, 170 House Democrats voted against that legislation,” Johnson said. “But as Democrats struggle with their identity now as a party post-election, we’ll find out if they’re still clinging into that open border policy and that mantra despite the American people roundly rejecting all that in November. We’ll see. This will be a telling vote.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune teed up a procedural vote on the Laken Riley Act in the Senate, which could occur as soon as this week. It will be one of the first legislative actions taken by the new Senate.
The bill will need 60 votes to advance through the upper chamber. Even with the Republicans’ new 53-vote majority, it could prove difficult to court the necessary Democratic support to advance it.
So far, only one Democrat, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, is reportedly co-sponsoring the bill, which is being led in the chamber by Sens. Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Ted Budd, R-N.C. It is unclear whether there will be requisite Democratic support to clear the Senate.
The Senate, under Democratic leadership last session, never considered the act as a standalone bill. But it previously considered the Laken Riley Act when Senate Republicans forced a vote on it as an amendment to a sweeping government funding package in March. The amendment was considered as a government shutdown loomed, and changes to the bill would have likely forced a government shutdown.
No Democrats voted for it at the time, though it later earned the support of Montana Sen. Jon Tester, who lost reelection to Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy.
