OMB general counsel faces backlash following federal funding freeze order: Sources
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — When the Office of Management and Budget issued a sweeping order this week freezing trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, senior White House officials had not reviewed it beforehand, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The order was rescinded following legal challenges and intense backlash amid widespread confusion and disruptions to critical services like Medicaid.
And now, amid the fallout, finger pointing has begun inside the administration, sources said, with the attention turning to Mark Paoletta, OMB’s general counsel, who played a key role in drafting the order.
Top White House policy adviser Stephen Miller and staff secretary Will Scharf were among those who had been left out of the review process, sources said.
The fallout has already led to discussions about reassigning Paoletta away from his position as OMB’s general counsel, though no final decision has been made, according to multiple sources.
Sources said senior advisers were caught off guard and frustrated that they had not reviewed the memo before its release, seeing its rollout as a stain on what had otherwise been smooth messaging around President Donald Trump’s rapid rollout of executive orders.
Meanwhile, some rank-and-file officials at OMB were themselves left confused both when the memo was issued and after it was rescinded, sources said.
OMB officials did not respond to a request for comment from ABC News.
On Wednesday, a federal judge signaled he would issue a temporary restraining order barring the Trump administration from freezing federal loans and grants. That’s now raised concerns that the White House will try to enact the same policy described in the now-rescinded memo.
District Judge John McConnell Jr. had harsh words for the Trump administration following a social media post by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, in which Leavitt said it was the memo that was being rescinded, not the freeze itself.
“This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze,” Leavitt posted on X, defending the policy after the memo was rescinded. “It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented.”
Despite the Office of Management rescinding their directive, Judge McConnell said he believed there was “sufficient evidence” that the government still plans to carry out the policy based on Leavitt’s social media post.
“That’s my read of the tweet. I can’t believe I’m saying that, but that’s my read of the tweet,” Judge McConnell said.
(NEW YORK) — In its first note of the day, the jury in Daniel Penny’s manslaughter and negligent homicide trial reported that it is “unable to come to a unanimous vote” on whether Penny committed second-degree manslaughter in the death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man, on the New York City subway.
“We the jury request instructions from Judge Wiley. At this time, we are unable to come to a unanimous vote on court one,” the note said.
Judge Maxwell Wiley gave the jury an Allen charge, which refers to the jury instructions given to a hung jury that encourages them to continue deliberating despite the deadlock. He is giving the lawyers time to consider the next steps.
Penny’s lawyer, Thomas Kenniff, unsuccessfully moved for a mistrial, arguing that the Allen Charge would be “coercive.”
Wiley disagreed, saying that it was “too early” to declare a mistrial before encouraging the jury to continue their deliberations.
Since the jury got the case on Tuesday, they have deliberated for more than 20 hours.
Penny, a 25-year-old former Marine, put Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, in a six-minute-long chokehold after Neely boarded a subway car acting erratically, according to police. Witnesses described Neely yelling and moving erratically, with Penny’s attorneys calling Neely “insanely threatening” when Penny put Neely in a chokehold.
The city’s medical examiner concluded Penny’s chokehold killed Neely.
Penny pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and negligent homicide charges.
The verdict form asks the jury to decide the first count – second-degree manslaughter – before potentially moving to the second count of criminally negligent homicide. Only if it finds Penny not guilty on the first count, can it consider the second count of criminally negligent homicide.
The second-degree manslaughter charge only requires prosecutors to have proven Penny acted recklessly, not intentionally.
“It would be a crazy result to have a hung jury just because they can’t move on to the second count?” prosecutor Dafna Yoran said.
Yoran also told Wiley that a new trial would “ultimately [be] the case if they hang the case.”
Wiley left unanswered the question about whether the jury could move onto the second count if they are unable to reach a verdict on the first count. He said he believed the jury moving to the second count is possible but needs to find the legal authority to do so.
“I think ultimately we are going to have to answer the question of whether they can move to count two,” he said.
Twenty minutes after the judge encouraged them to continue deliberating despite their deadlock, the jury sent back another note requesting more information about the term “reasonable person” in their instructions.
“Ultimately, what a reasonable person is up to you to decide,” Wiley told the jury in response to their note, referring them to a two-part test in jury instruction.
To convict Penny of manslaughter, the jury must be convinced Penny acted recklessly and grossly deviated from how a reasonable person would behave, knowing the risk his conduct posed.
“Would a reasonable person have had the same honestly held belief as the defendant given the circumstances and what the defendant knew at that time?” Wiley asked, referring to the second part of the test.
Before the jury entered, Wiley noted how the “reasonableness” standard was established in People v. Goetz – another high-profile New York trial after Bernhard Goetz shot four teenagers on a New York subway in 1984 after they allegedly tried to rob him. A New York jury convicted Goetz for one count of carrying an unlicensed firearm but acquitted on the more severe charges, and the trial sparked a nationwide debate about race and crime that has echoed forty years later in Penny’s case.
(VICTORIA, Texas) — A small plane crashed into three vehicles Wednesday afternoon on a roadway in Victoria, Texas.
According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the twin-engine Piper PA-31 crashed around 3:00 p.m. local time.
Only the pilot was on board the plane at the time of the crash.
In a video posted on Facebook, which showed the wreckage, the Victoria Police Department said there had been three vehicles and one airplane involved in the crash.
The condition of the vehicles’ occupants is unknown at this time, according to the police department.
“Preliminary information indicates the plane landed on a roadway and struck multiple vehicles,” the National Transportation Safety Board said in a statement.
The FAA and the NTSB will investigate the incident.
(NEW YORK) — East Coast residents and lawmakers are again demanding answers after another slew of drone sightings in the region, with the origins of the alleged craft still unclear.
Matthew Murello, the mayor of Washington Township in New Jersey, told “Good Morning America” on Monday that he believes “something’s going on,” expressing concern and frustration at the lack of answers from federal authorities.
“I’m not trying to stir anything up, but we all know — if you just turn on the television — that drones can be used in an aggressive fashion,” Murello said. “They can carry payloads. They can be used for all kinds of really aggressive-type things.”
White House national security communications adviser John Kirby said Thursday that “many” of the reported drone sightings appear to be lawfully operated manned aircraft, adding there was “no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or a public safety threat, or have a foreign nexus.”
But Murello said those living under the drones are not reassured.
“That’s a wonderful thing to tell your residents,” he said when asked about Kirby’s assurances. “That’s fantastic, until it’s not.”
“Nobody knows what these things are doing,” Murello added. “Best case scenario, they’re just getting video of us. Again, I don’t know why out here. We’re nothing but farm country. If you want videos of cows, I’ll be happy to send you some.”
Murello cast doubt on the official statements suggesting “no perceived threat.”
“We’ve heard that before from our federal government — ‘We’re not looking, we’re not watching you, we’re not watching your calls, we’re not doing everything and don’t worry — we’re here and we’re here to help you’,” he said.
Murello was among a group of New Jersey mayors who wrote to Gov. Phil Murphy asking for more information. The mayors were subsequently invited to a meeting, but Murello said the governor did not attend.
Instead, state police told the mayors they had little information on the drones. Authorities, Murello said, could not explain why some drones are being flown without emitting radio frequencies or using transponders — both of which are required by law when a drone is used at night.
Murello said he had personally seen “a couple” of drones “around my town.” He disputed Kirby’s statement that many of the reported sightings were of misidentified manned aircraft.
“I have no way of telling you how big it was, but I can sure as heck can tell what they sound like,” the mayor said. “And I know that they are not. What Adm. Kirby said — which is a manned aircraft — that just isn’t right.”
“I’ve seen multiple rotor, helicopter-type aircraft hovering above the tree line,” Murello said, recalling one police official who said the drones can be up to 6 feet in diameter. The fact that most are spotted at night makes it “very difficult to kind of get an idea on them,” Murello added.
Reports of drone activity forced the temporary closure of runways at New York’s Stewart International Airport on Friday. The potential danger to aircraft is causing concern on the East Coast, Murello said.
“If pilots don’t see these things and they’re 6 foot in diameter and they hit an airplane — that is not going to end well,” he said.
Senators are also pushing federal agencies for more information. Last week, New York Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and New Jersey Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim wrote to the heads of the FBI, Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Homeland Security requesting meetings.
“We write with urgent concern regarding the unmanned aerial system activity that has affected communities across New York and New Jersey in recent days,” the letter said, requesting a briefing “as soon as possible on how your agencies are working with federal and local law enforcement to identify and address the source of these incursions.”
The mystery has caught the public’s attention, with photos and videos of alleged sightings proliferating across social media. One FBI official told reporters Saturday that out of the nearly 5,000 tips the agency had received, less than 100 generated credible leads for further investigation.
As the search for answers continues, Murello said he sees “only two logical conclusions.”
“One is somebody knows something and they’re just not willing to tell us,” the mayor said, suggesting potential national security sensitivities around the Morristown Airport and President-elect Donald Trump’s Bedminster golf course.
“If this is an area that needs to be surveilled in the eventuality that the incoming president is going to spend a lot of time here, you know what? I’m fine with that. Just simply say it’s an issue of national security,” he said.
An “even scarier” explanation is that “we’re the greatest nation in the world with the most technologically advanced military on the planet earth, and we don’t know what the hell these things are,” Murello added. “That’s scary.”
The DHS and FAA have both warned against attempting to shoot down a suspected drone, citing the danger of falling debris and ammunition.
It is illegal to shoot down a drone. Anyone who does so could be fined up to $250,000 and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison.
Murello said he would “definitely” not advise anyone to try to down a drone. “You also don’t know if you do hit it, where it’s going to come down and where are the rounds of ammunition going to land,” he said.
“But I will say that, speaking with friends of mine that are current and former state troopers, we have the technology to be able to bring a drone down,” Murello added, suggesting it was “absolutely silly” that law enforcement authorities are not authorized to down drones unless they are deemed a threat by the federal government.
“We don’t need to bring all of them down, we need to bring one of them down,” Murello continued. “We bring one down, we figure out what’s going on.”
