In major reversal, Kennedy tells senators he won’t take money from vaccine lawsuit
Win McNamee/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — After a bruising round of confirmation hearings this week that left Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation in doubt, the nominee for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services declared in a written statement to senators on Friday that, if confirmed, he will divest his financial stake in an ongoing civil lawsuit against a vaccine manufacturer.
Kennedy’s commitment to walk away from the potential windfall is a major reversal for the nominee, who in his ethics plan submitted to federal officials earlier this month told lawmakers he was entitled to those proceeds so long as the U.S. government wasn’t involved.
Democrats had seized on Kennedy’s financial stake in the lawsuit, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., warning that he could use his perch in government to make it easier for lawyers – including himself – to sue vaccine manufacturers and drug makers in court.
The lawsuit alleges marketing fraud against pharmaceutical company Merck for its HPV vaccine, Gardasil, which Merck denies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains that the vaccine has been proven safe, with more than 160 studies finding no concerns.
“Kennedy can kill off access to vaccines and make millions of dollars while he does it,” Warren said at Kennedy’s confirmation hearing on Wednesday.
“Kids might die, but Robert Kennedy will keep cashing in,” she added.
Kennedy struggled to lock-up conservative support for his nomination after testifying this week. On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal’s right-leaning editorial board praised Warren, writing that her questioning “expose[d]” Kennedy.
The next day, Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said he was “struggling” with Kennedy’s nomination, noting at one point that Kennedy was “financially vested in finding fault with vaccines.”
Kennedy told senators in his testimony Thursday that he was giving away his rights to the fees in the lawsuit against Merck. However, it was unclear whether he misspoke because his ethics agreement still maintained that he was entitled to the fees.
In written answers provided to the Senate Finance Committee on Friday, Kennedy clarified that an amendment was forthcoming.
“An amendment to my Ethics Agreement is in process, and it provides that I will divest my interest in this litigation,” he said.
Kennedy has earned millions of dollars in referral fees from law firms in the past for lawsuits unrelated to vaccines, including one involving a pesticide. He had not earned money yet from the Merck case, which only recently was taken up in civil courts.
In his testimony, Kennedy said he wanted to retain the right to sue drug companies even if confirmed.
“You’re asking me to not sue drug companies, and I am not going to agree to that,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump and his allies have vowed to radically shift American policy from Day 1.
From mass deportations to eliminating the Department of Education, Trump’s policies could impact millions of people and communities across the country. However, experts say there is a big obstacle that will make it harder — if not impossible — for the incoming administration to implement these plans: States and municipalities.
Alison LaCroix, professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, told ABC News that the power to regulate and implement key laws lies strictly within the states and many local leaders have already been working to prepare for a possible future Trump administration.
“The states have a lot of levers in the constitutional system, legal system and other systems,” she said. “This usually comes as a lot of shock to people who don’t know how much power they wield but we’re going to soon find out how valuable they are.”
Other experts who have focused on some of the biggest sectors targeted by Trump, such as public health and immigration, agreed but said they are likely gearing up for a legal and policy fight that could last a long time.
Trump has said he aims to remove at least 1 million immigrants living in the country illegally from the U.S. as soon as possible.
Elora Mukherjee, the director of Columbia Law School’s immigration clinic, told ABC News that states can’t outright act as immigration enforcement for the federal government without an agreement.
“It is the principle that the federal government cannot order local law enforcement to enact federal priorities,” she said.
Democratic governors like Gavin Newsom of California and JB Pritzker of Illinois have vowed not to assist Trump with any mass deportation plan, and Mukherjee said their claims are not empty words.
She said states already showed their power during the first Trump administration by blocking Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from entering courthouses for potential raids and denying the agency detainers that would have kept jailed immigrants in custody longer without an arraignment.
She added that any attempts by the Republican-controlled Congress to change immigration and deportation laws to take away rights from the states will take some time and likely be met with resistance even among Republican members who think it is too extreme.
“The Trump administration will issue many executive orders, but a large number that will be illegal and unconstitutional,” Mukherjee added.
At the same time, Mukherjee said that conservative states and municipalities may bolster anti-immigrant policies and make it harder for migrants and asylum seekers to gain a path to citizenship.
Sixty counties and police districts, many of them in Florida, have entered into 287(g) agreements with ICE, in which local law enforcement can conduct immigration policies on behalf of the federal government such as executing warrants and detaining undocumented immigrants, according to Mukherjee.
Florida also passed SB 1718 last year which cracks down on undocumented immigration with several provisions, including making it illegal to transport undocumented immigrants and requiring hospitals to ask patients for their immigration status.
Mukherjee stressed that states cannot try to enforce their own laws in other jurisdictions due to the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg vs. Pennsylvania. That case, which overturned the conviction of a man convicted under a state law that prevented slave-catching, held that while federal law supersedes state law, states are not required to use their resources to uphold federal laws.
“It’s extremely difficult and illegal for one state to impose their laws onto another,” Mukherjee said.
Even when it comes to executive orders, Mukherjee said the laws are mostly on the side of states and municipalities.
Trump’s “border czar” choice Tom Homan has already threatened to go after states and cities that refuse to comply with the president-elect’s deportation plans, including arresting mayors.
Mukherjee said there is no legal mechanism or modern legal precedent that allows the federal government to incarcerate local leaders for not adhering to an administration’s policy.
“Sanctuary city laws are entirely allowed within the U.S. Constitution,” she said. “The 10th Amendment is extremely clear. The powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. This is a bedrock principle of U.S. constitutional law.”
Public education State education officials are in the same boat when it comes to federal oversight, experts said.
Although Trump and other allies have made it clear that they want to eliminate or weaken the federal Department of Education, funding for schools and education programs lies mostly in the hands of state legislatures and local school boards, according to Alice O’Brien, the general counsel for the National Education Association.
“Those campaign promises in reality are much harder to achieve,” O’Brien told ABC News. “They would require federal legislation to accomplish.”
Federal oversight has little control over local school curriculum policies, she added.
O’Brien noted that much of the federal oversight on public schools lies outside of the jurisdiction of the Department of Education. For example, state school districts must adhere to laws set forth at the federal level such as non-discrimination against race and religion and disabilities.
“States and school systems can not run in any way that conflicts with the federal Constitution,” O’Brien said.
When it comes to funding, although the federal DOE does provide funding as a floor to many school districts, it is a small fraction compared to the funding that comes from city and state coffers, O’Brien explained.
Public health “It really comes down to a state-by-state basis in terms of how much dollars are allocated to the schools,” she said. “Ultimately it really comes down to how much money the state budgets have.”
Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association and former Maryland health secretary, told ABC News that state public health offices operate under the same localized jurisdiction and thus would have more autonomy on health policies.
Trump’s pick for the head of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been a staunch promoter of anti-vaccination policies and has pushed for the end of fluoride in water supplies.
Benjamin said he is worried about the effects of having someone with no professional health experience and public dismissiveness of proven health policies, however, he remarked that states and municipalities still hold immense power in implementing policies.
Georges noted that fluoride levels in the water supply are dictated at a local level, and many counties have chosen not to implement them. Federal health agencies can make recommendations but cannot block a municipality from implementing fluoridation, he said.
“There is no fiscal penalty for not following it,” Benjamin said of federal recommendations.
The same rules govern local vaccination requirements, he added.
“[The federal government does] control vaccine mandates at the federal level, with the federal workforce, but they don’t control the bulk of childhood mandates,” Benjamin said.
He noted that the country saw the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of state-run public health systems during the two years that COVID-19 hit the nation and the rollout of the vaccines. Republican and Democratic states all instituted shelter-in-place and social distancing rules during the peak of cases, Benjamin said.
“I do think we have a wait-and-see attitude,” he said.
In the meantime, several states have taken measures to bolster their state health policies, particularly when it comes to reproductive rights, through legislative action and ballot measures.
Power in state prosecutors One of the biggest ways that states will be able to “Trump-proof” their laws and policies is through state prosecutors and the courts, LaCroix said.
“We will see a lot of arguments in local government and what they can do,” she said.
Mukherjee said several state attorneys general were able to take Trump to court during his first administration and push back against immigration proposals such as his ban on residents from Muslim countries and deportation plans.
Mukherjee said despite the increase in Trump-backed judges in the federal courts, there is still the rule of law when it comes to immigration. For example, earlier this year, a federal judge struck down the provision in Florida’s SB 1718 that threatens felony charges for people who transport an undocumented immigrant.
U.S. District Judge Roy Altman, a Trump-appointed judge, issued an injunction against that provision stating that immigration-related enforcement was not in the state’s power.
“It will be harder this time around to win sweeping victories for immigrants and non-citizens … but federal judges across party lines reined in the worst abuses of the Trump administration the first time around,” she said.
LaCroix echoed that statement and said that partisanship can only go so far, especially when it comes to laws enshrined in the state and federal constitutions.
“Judges still have to give reasons for what they do and ‘because our party is in charge’ doesn’t hold weight,” she said.
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump distanced himself from Project 2025 on the campaign trail but has since nominated several authors or contributors from the controversial conservative presidential wish list to his administration.
Trump called the Project 2025 policy proposals — which include restrictions on abortion pills, birth control pills and Medicare access, as well as eliminating a couple of federal agencies — “extreme, seriously extreme” in a July 20 rally.
“I don’t know anything about it. I don’t want to know anything about it,” he previously said, despite having many connections to its authors and contributors.
Democrats pounced on Trump for Project 2025 during the election season, calling it a warning of what is to come under a second Trump term.
“Project 2025 is the plan by Donald Trump’s MAGA Republican allies to give Trump more power over your daily life, gut democratic checks and balances, and consolidate power in the Oval Office if he wins,” the Biden campaign stated.
Project 2025 is an over 900-page playbook of policy proposals created by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation intended to guide the next conservative administration. The organization behind the document told ABC News in a past statement that it was not intended to speak for any candidate during the election.
Project 2025 and Trump’s Agenda47 share similarities — including proposals to eliminate the Department of Education, increase fossil fuel energy production, and begin mass deportations.
At the ABC News debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump reiterated his earlier sentiment on the project. “This was a group of people that got together, they came up with some ideas, I guess some good, some bad, but it makes no difference. I have nothing to do [with it].”
Now, several Project 2025 authors and contributors are not just connected to Trump, but also nominated for roles in his administration.
Here’s a look at which Project 2025 contributors may have a place in the incoming Trump administration:
Russ Vought
Russ Vought, who is cited as authoring a chapter on “Executive Office of the President” for Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” has been nominated to head the Office of Management and Budget. He was also the RNC platform committee’s policy director.
During Trump’s first term, Vought led the Office of Management and Budget, a department meant to oversee the president’s vision across the executive branch for everything from budgeting to managing certain agencies.
He could return to the post after authoring an entire chapter of Project 2025, where he argues federal regulatory agencies that aren’t under the control of the White House should have less autonomy: “A President today assumes office to find a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences — or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly ‘woke’ faction of the country,” the chapter read.
In the chapter, he outlined ways his office could help consolidate executive power by using existing tools to impose a crackdown on federal spending and work with Congress to pass policy and reforms that would rein in what he calls the “administrative state.”
In a November interview on the “Tucker Carlson Show,” Vought claimed he helped the president-elect to exert executive power during his first term: “The president wanted to fund the wall. We at OMB gave him a plan to be able to go and fund the wall through money that was Department of Defense and to use that because Congress wouldn’t give him the ordinary money at the Department of Homeland Security.”
Pete Hoekstra
Pete Hoekstra, who is listed as a contributor to Project 2025, has been tapped to be the ambassador to Canada.
Most recently, Hoekstra served as chairman of the Michigan Republican Party. He previously served as the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands during Trump’s first term.
Stephen Miller
Stephen Miller, the former Trump aide, led an interest group that advised Project 2025 on policy. Trump has named Miller as his Deputy Chief of Staff for his second term.
Miller told ABC News in July that he has “zero involvement” with Project 2025, only making an advice video for students.
America First Legal, founded by Miller, was previously listed as an advisory board member for the project.
Brendan Carr
Brendan Carr, Trump’s nomination for chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is credited as the author of Project 2025’s FCC recommendations which include: a ban on TikTok, restrictions on social media moderation, and more.
Carr would be tasked with regulating broadcasting, telecommunications and broadband. Trump has suggested that he would expand the White House’s influence over the FCC and potentially punish TV networks that cover him in a way he doesn’t like.
Carr is a longtime member of the commission and served previously as the FCC’s general counsel and as the senior Republican for the FCC. He has been unanimously confirmed by the Senate three times and was nominated by both Trump and President Joe Biden to the commission.
John Ratcliffe
Ratcliffe, listed as a contributor who assisted “in the development and writing” of Project 2025, has been nominated to serve as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Ratcliffe is a three-term Republican congressman from Texas and served as the director of national intelligence from mid-2020 until the end of Trump’s first term.
Project 2025’s Intelligence Community chapter, credited to The Heritage Foundation’s intelligence research fellow Dustin J. Carmack, notes that the “CIA’s success depends on firm direction from the President and solid internal CIA Director–appointed leadership. Decisive senior leaders must commit to carrying out the President’s agenda and be willing to take calculated risks.”
Tom Homan
Former Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan has been designated as Trump’s “border czar” — which is not an official Cabinet position.
Homan, who is expected to be in charge of the mass deportations promised by the Trump campaign, is listed as a contributor to Project 2025 who assisted in its “development and writing.”
Project 2025’s Department of Homeland Security chapter, credited to Trump’s former Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli, calls for full use of ICE’s “expedited removal” authority and further development of immigrant detention spaces. This all aligns with Trump’s immigration proposals on mass deportations and funds for the construction of detention centers.
Other links to Project 2025
Christopher Miller is credited with the project’s Department of Defense recommendations. Miller served as Acting Secretary of Defense and Special Assistant to the President under Trump from November 2020 to January 2021.
Ben Carson is credited with the project’s Housing and Urban Development recommendations. He served as the Secretary of HUD under Trump’s first administration.
Adam Candeub is credited with the project’s Federal Trade Commission recommendations. He served under the Trump administration as Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Telecommunications and Information.
Bernard L. McNamee is credited with recommendations on the Department of Energy and Related Commissions. He was nominated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Trump in October 2018.
Cuccinelli — who wrote the Department of Homeland Security section — was also part of Trump’s former administration as the Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.
The RNC platform committee’s Deputy Policy Director Ed Martin is also president of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, which is listed on the project’s advisory board.
Others connected to Trump, including Trump’s United Nations Commission on the Status of Women appointee Lisa Correnti, are listed among the contributors.
(WASHINGTON) — An attorney representing two women who were witnesses in the House Ethics Committee’s investigation into now-former Rep. Matt Gaetz is calling for the release of the committee’s report, telling ABC News that one of his clients testified that she witnessed the Florida congressman having sex with a minor.
“My client testified to the House Ethics Committee that she witnessed Matt Gaetz having sex with a minor,” Florida attorney Joel Leppard told ABC News.
“As the Senate considers former Rep. Gaetz’s nomination for attorney general, several questions demand answers,” Leppard said. “What if multiple credible witnesses provided evidence of behavior that would constitute serious criminal violations?”
“Democracy demands transparency. Release the Gaetz Ethics report,” said Leppard, who represents two women who sat for closed-door testimony with the committee over the summer.
Gaetz, who President-elect Donald Trump selected this week to serve as his attorney general, has long denied any wrongdoing, including have an inappropriate relationship with a minor. The Justice department declined to charge Gaetz last year after a yearslong investigation into the allegations.
Gaetz did not respond to a request for comment from ABC News regarding Leppard’s claims.
The two witnesses, who ABC News is not naming, both allegedly attended parties with the congressman. Gaetz’s one-time friend Joel Greenberg is currently serving an 11-year prison sentence after reaching a deal with prosecutors in May 2021 in which he pleaded guilty to multiple federal crimes including sex trafficking of the woman when she was a minor and introducing her to other “adult men” who also had sex with her when she was underage.
According to Greenberg’s plea deal, the woman, who ABC News is not identifying, met Greenberg online in 2017 and began meeting him in hotels and houses in the Middle District of Florida, where he “introduced the Minor to other adult men, who engaged in commercial sex acts with the Minor in the Middle District of Florida,” court documents said.
At the time, the minor “represented that she was an adult” on the website where she met Greenberg — and according to his plea agreement, he acknowledges that he “acted in reckless disregard of the fact that the Minor was less than 18 years old when he engaged in commercial sex acts” and had a “reasonable opportunity to observe” that she was underage.
Leppard’s statement comes after attorney John Clune, who represents the former minor at the center of the probe, called for the release of the Ethics Committee’s report on Thursday.
“Mr. Gaetz’s likely nomination as Attorney General is a perverse development in a truly dark series of events. We would support the House Ethics Committee immediately releasing their report. She was a high school student and there were witnesses,” Clune said in a statement.
The woman, who is now in her 20s, testified to the House Ethics Committee that the now-former Florida congressman had sex with her when she was 17 years old and he was in Congress, ABC News previously reported.
In a statement responding to that reporting, Gaetz said, “These allegations are invented and would constitute false testimony to Congress. This false smear following a three year criminal investigation should be viewed with great skepticism.”
The Justice Department spent years investigating the allegations against Gaetz, including allegations of obstruction of justice, before informing Gaetz last year that it would not bring charges.
Gaetz has long vehemently denied any wrongdoing related to the Justice Department probe. In September, he released a detailed response to questions sent to him by the House Ethics Committee, which was investigating allegations of alleged sexual misconduct and illicit drug use.
“Your correspondence of September 4 asks whether I have engaged in sexual activity with any individual under 18. The answer to this question is unequivocally NO. You can apply this response to every version of this question, in every forum,” Gaetz said in a statement posted to his social media account.
Gaetz resigned from office this week after being selected to lead Trump’s Justice Department, which ended the House Ethics Committee’s probe that sources tell ABC News had been entering its final stages. Prior to Gaetz’s resignation, the committee had planned to meet this week to discuss whether to release their report on the investigation — leaving it unclear if the report will ever see the light of day.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Friday that he does not think the House Ethics Committee should release the findings of its investigation into Gaetz, now that the Florida Republican is no longer a member of Congress.
“I believe it is very important to maintain the House’s tradition of not issuing ethics reports on people who are no longer members of Congress. I think it would open a Pandora’s box,” he said.
Leppard told ABC News he supports the release of the report.
“What if sworn testimony detailed conduct that would disqualify anyone from serving as our nation’s chief law enforcement officer?” the attorney said in his statement to ABC News.
