House Republicans meet with Trump to ‘move the ball forward’ on his agenda
Melina Mara /The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Speaker Mike Johnson led a cross-section of House Republicans for a trip down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House on Wednesday, where they’re huddling with President Donald Trump to chew over their strategy to advance the president’s ambitious agenda.
“This is part of the process…the America First Agenda. We look forward to furthering that discussion. So, it’s going to be a good meeting,” Johnson, R-La., said before emphasizing the leadership is “working on a one-bill strategy.”
It’s not just elected House GOP leadership attending the meeting, as both conservatives and moderates are expected to join the discussion. Asked about the meeting’s goal, Johnson told reporters that the objective is “to move the ball forward.”
“I think we will,” he said. “We’re at a good place.”
Republicans must pass a budget resolution to unlock a complex process to enact sweeping reforms to taxes, energy, border security and more. But Johnson currently has just a one-vote cushion to pass legislation through the lower chamber, so Republican leaders are cognizant that even a pair of dissenting Republicans could doom their collective efforts.
“We’ve got to work very meticulously with our members to first make sure we have the votes to get a budget passed,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said Wednesday. “We can’t have 22 [Republicans] opposing. We can’t have four opposing. And so we’re working through a lot more detail now on what reconciliation would look like on the front end before we actually get the budget passed.”
Leaving the Capitol Wednesday morning, Scalise boasted that he’s “very confident” Republicans will reach consensus on a budget plan — though he admitted that the meeting today is a “critical step” in the process.
Scalise also raised concerns about the Senate’s evolving approach, which could punt tax reform to a second attempt to overhaul the budget late this year. The No. 2 House Republican explained that delaying tax reform in 2017 undercut the anticipated economic growth at the time.
“You didn’t really get the bounce because it took so long to get the second bill done,” Scalise said. “The President remembers that. You know, it’s one of the reasons we lost the majority. And so do you want to repeat that history, or do you want to do it earlier? You get the benefits earlier, and increase the likelihood that you actually get tax [reform], because the question of whether or not you can even pass a second bill is a real, real, serious concern.”
Senate Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told senators during a closed-door lunch on Wednesday that the Senate will take the reins and begin work to advance its own package next week.
Senate Republicans plan to discuss their two-bill approach with Trump at Mar-A-Lago on Friday.
(WASHINGTON) — A growing number of senators have privately signaled that they are not inclined to vote to confirm Pete Hegseth as President-elect Donald Trump’s next defense secretary, leading Trump’s advisers to begin discussing who may be a viable replacement, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
Sources tell ABC News that at least six senators have privately indicated that they don’t intend to vote for Hegseth amid the growing allegations about his mistreatment of women.
While Trump and his advisers have privately said the president-elect backs Hegseth and wants him to “keep fighting,” sources familiar with private discussions tell ABC News that a growing list of replacements is emerging to replace him. Those include Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty and Florida Rep. Mike Waltz, whom Trump has already tapped to be national security adviser.
Sources close to DeSantis say he has expressed interest in the role. He was seen today with Trump attending a memorial service for three Palm Beach County sheriff’s deputies in West Palm Beach, who were killed in a crash last month.
Reached by ABC News, a spokesperson for the Trump transition team declined to comment.
Hegseth was back on Capitol Hill Tuesday looking to shore up support as he fends off the allegations of misconduct and sexual impropriety.
The visit came after a report in The New Yorker that Hegseth was forced to step down from two veteran nonprofit groups — Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America — amid accusations of financial mismanagement, sexist behavior and other disqualifying behavior.
ABC News has not independently confirmed the magazine’s account. Hegseth’s attorney, Tim Parlatore, told The New Yorker the claims were “outlandish.”
(WASHINGTON) — Concern over dangers to children from increasingly easy access to hardcore pornography online dominated U.S. Supreme Court arguments on Wednesday in a high-profile dispute over a growing number of state laws requiring adult websites to verify the age of users.
The justices heard an appeal from an adult entertainment industry trade group challenging a 2023 Texas mandate that sites with more than a third of content containing “sexual material harmful to minors” must receive electronic proof that a patron is 18 or older.
In all, 18 other states have similar age-verification measures as a means to limit access by minors.
Allowing the Texas measure to stand, industry attorney Derek Shaffer told the justices, “could open the door to an emerging wave of regulations that imperil free speech online.” Many members of the court seemed inclined to support the law nonetheless.
While all states have long made it illegal for brick-and-mortar sellers of pornography to serve underage buyers, the industry alleges Texas’ online verification law uniquely threatens individual privacy and data security for millions of adults who otherwise have a First Amendment right to view the material.
The law requires users to provide digital ID, government-issued ID or other commercially reasonable verification methods, such as a facial scan or credit card transaction data.
“You should have confidentiality that is legally assured,” said Shaffer.
A federal district court sided with the industry and blocked the law; the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that it served a legitimate government interest notwithstanding any imposition on the rights of adult consumers.
“Age verification today is simple, safe, and common, including non-identifying means,” said Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson.
Many of the justices seemed eager to find a way to allow the Texas law to remain in force in the interest of protecting children, but also to clarify the strong constitutional protection for free speech that prevents states from excessively infringing on free speech rights.
“Technological access to pornography, obviously, has exploded, right?” observed Chief Justice John Roberts. “It was very difficult for 15-year-olds to get access to the type of things that are available with a push of a button today. And the nature of the pornography, I think, has also changed.”
Roberts implied that the court may need to revisit its precedents that have offered sweeping protection to adult content creators and the adults who consume the material.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a mother of seven, said she knew firsthand how pernicious the dangers of online pornography have become.
“Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers. Let me just say that content-filtering for all those different 25 devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with,” Barrett said. “I think that the explosion of addiction to online porn has shown that content-filtering isn’t working.”
Justice Brett Kavanagh, a father of two teenage daughters, pressed Shaffer over the harms that he suggested states must be able to protect against.
“Do you dispute the societal problems that are created both short term and long term from the rampant access to pornography for children?” Kavanaugh asked.
“That is a complicated question that I don’t know that I can speak to definitively,” Shaffer replied.
Justice Samuel Alito bluntly expressed skepticism of the industry’s claim that less-restrictive alternatives exist to protect kids online, such as parental controls and content-filtering software.
“Come on, be real,” Alito chided Shaffer. “There’s a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn’t work.”
Several justices, while vocally supportive in principle of the need to prevent children from viewing porn, voiced concern that the means states like Texas were using put too much burden on the content creators and adult consumers.
“It’s not clear to me that just the fact that we have new technology is running in favor of allowing this law to stand as is,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a mother of two teenage girls.
“We appreciate the state’s interest in protecting children,” Jackson told Nielson, “but we’re not going to let the state, you know, impose, like, a thousand things that would make it really, really hard for adults when there are other alternatives to protect children.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed that sentiment: “Assuming we agree with you, and I think most people do, that kids are to be protected, how much of a burden is permissible on adults’ First Amendment rights?” he asked Nielson.
“One of the important parts of modern age verification technology is that you can do it without identification at all,” the Texas attorney replied. “In other words, there’s no ID or anything like that. It’s just a face scan.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested the rights of adults to engage in free speech — and free consumption of sexually explicit content — needed guarantees.
“This law … says you can’t retain this information. The other side in its brief argues that that doesn’t mean you can’t sell it or give it away,” she pointed out to Neilson.
“I don’t know if that’s even technologically possible,” he replied.
The case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, pits a growing nationwide effort to strengthen protections for minors online against a booming multi-billion dollar adult entertainment industry.
“More people watch porn and view porn each year than vote and read the newspaper,” said Lisa Blatt, a veteran Supreme Court litigator with Williams & Connolly LLP.
A 2016 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that up to 70% of men and 40% of women have consumed pornography within the past year in the U.S.
American teenagers have reported similar levels of exposure to pornography a number of studies conducted over the past three years show. Public health experts say young people who view sexually explicit content are more likely to start having sex earlier, engage in unsafe sex, and have multiple partners.
Twenty years ago in a remarkably similar case — Ashcroft v. ACLU — the high court struck down federal legislation that would have required age verification to view sexually explicit material. The decision instead put the onus on parents and technology companies to utilize less burdensome content-filtering software.
The court could choose to rethink that decision and other precedents on these issues, or return the case to a lower court for further consideration under a clarification of existing law.
A decision is expected in the case by the end of June.
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing for U.S. Attorney General in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Donald Trump’s attorney general nominee Pam Bondi vowed she would remove politics from the Department of Justice during the first day of her confirmation hearing, though her refusal to answer key questions about Trump’s 2020 election loss and his outspoken desire for retribution raised concerns about how she would execute her promise.
With a second day of her hearing set to resume on Thursday, Bondi is expected to glide through confirmation and take on the role of the country’s top law enforcement officer, tasked with implementing Trump’s longstanding desire to reshape the Department of Justice that brought two criminal cases against him before his election.
“The partisanship, the weaponization, will be gone. America will have one tier of justice for all,” Bondi said, vowing that, “There will never be an enemy’s list within the Department of Justice.”
While Bondi sought to reassure the Senate Judiciary Committee about her independence from Trump and desire to usher in a “new golden age” of the DOJ, her refusal to say that Trump lost the 2020 election, defense of her past statement that “prosecutors will be prosecuted,” and openness to investigate Special Counsel Jack Smith prompted skepticism from Democratic members of the committee.
If confirmed, Bondi would lead the DOJ with recently expanded power after the Supreme Court last year ruled that interactions between a president and attorney general are immune from prosecution.
“The fear and the concern we have is that the incoming president will use that loaded weapon, that immunity to commit crimes through the Department of Justice,” said Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff.
Here are five key takeaways from the first day of Bondi’s confirmation hearing:
Bondi vowed to keep politics out of prosecutions, but keeps the door open to investigating Jack Smith
Accusing President Joe Biden of coordinating political prosecutions, Bondi said that she would only bring cases based on “facts and law” and said she has not discussed starting investigations of Trump’s enemies with the president-elect.
“No one will be prosecuted, investigated because they are a political opponent. That’s what we’ve seen for the last four years in this administration. People will be prosecuted, based on the facts and the law,” Bondi said.
However, when pressed about Trump’s claim that special counsel Jack Smith should go to jail, Bondi declined to answer whether she would open an investigation into Smith before suggesting his conduct is “horrible.”
“Senator, what I’m hearing on the news is horrible. Do I know if he committed a crime? I have not looked at it,” said Bondi, who added that “it would be irresponsible … to make a commitment regarding anything.”
In his final report issued earlier this week, Smith denied Trump’s accusation that his work was in any way political — describing the accusation as “laughable” — and assuring Attorney General Merrick Garland that his work followed the “rule of law” and DOJ guidelines regarding political interference.
Bondi declined to answer key questions about Trump’s election denialism, vow to pardon Jan. 6 defendants
Bondi — who helped Trump spread distrust in the outcome of the 2020 election — notably declined to say that Trump lost the 2020 election, raising concerns from Democratic senators in light of Trump’s alleged use of the Department of Justice to illegally retain power after his defeat.
“Are you prepared to say today, under oath, without reservation, that Donald Trump lost the presidential contest to Joe Biden in 2020?” Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin asked.
“Joe Biden is the president of the United States. He was duly sworn in, and he is the president of the United States. There was a peaceful transition of power. President Trump left office and was overwhelmingly elected in 2024,” Bondi said, repeatedly refusing to offer a yes or no answer to the question.
Bondi also refused to condemn Trump’s baseless claim that “massive fraud” corrupted the 2020 election. When asked about Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which he asked him to “find” 11,780 votes, Bondi said she has not listened to the entirety of it, but suggested Trump’s comments were taken out of context.
Bondi also declined to comment about Trump’s vow to pardon the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, during his first day in office, telling the committee she would defer to Trump and declining to weigh in on the proposed pardons because she has not read every defendants’ case file.
“Senator, I have not seen any of those files. Of course, if confirmed and if asked to advise the president, I will look at each and every file. But let me be very clear in speaking to you, I condemn any violence on a law enforcement officer in this country,” Bondi answered.
Bondi avoided answering if she would disobey an unlawful order from Trump
When pressed by Democratic Sen. Chris Coons about dropping a criminal case if someone in the White House directed her to, Bondi declined to entertain the hypothetical.
“What I can tell you is my duty, if confirmed as the attorney general, will be to the Constitution and the United States of America, and the most important oath, part of that oath that I will take are the last four words, ‘So help me God.’”
Bondi at one point answered “of course” when asked if she would be willing to resign if asked to do something improper.
“Senator, I wouldn’t work at a law firm, I wouldn’t be a prosecutor, I wouldn’t be attorney general if anyone asked me to do something improper and I felt I had to carry that out,” Bondi said.
Schiff, who had multiple heated exchanges with Bondi, expressed skepticism that she could avoid confrontation with Trump, considering his past attorneys general.
“You may say that you believe that conflict will never come, but every day, week, month and year of the first Trump administration demonstrated that conflict will come. Jeff Sessions may not have believed it would come to him. It came to him. Bill Barr may not have believed it would come to him. It came to him. It came to everyone,” Schiff said. “It will come to you and what you do in that moment will define your attorney generalship.”
Bondi vowed to reform the DOJ but provided few specifics of her plans
Bondi told senators that she aspired to “restore confidence and integrity” in the DOJ after what she called a weaponization of the justice system to target Trump. She vowed that if confirmed, she would answer to the people of the U.S., not the president.
“My oath would be to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The people of America would be my client,” Bondi said.
While her vow to remove politics from the DOJ were cheered on by Senate Republicans, Bondi offered few details about how she would implement her plan across the department’s 115,000 employees. Bondi attempted to defend her 2023 statement that “prosecutors will be prosecuted,” telling the Committee that she would only bring cases against “bad” prosecutors.
Bondi appears poised to be confirmed by the Senate, as attention turns to Kash Patel
While Senate Democrats raised concerns about Bondi’s refusal to acknowledge Trump’s 2020 loss and lack of commitments, her confirmation appears all but assured.
“I know how to count and I know how to read tea leaves. It seems to me you’re very, very, very, very likely to be confirmed, and certainly look forward to working with you and your office,” said Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla towards the end of the hearing.
After the hearing on Wednesday, a few Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee avoided saying exactly how they’d vote on Bondi’s confirmation, though Sen. Dick Durbin, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the “odds are in her favor.:
“I would say the odds are in her favor with the majority of the Senate floor. I don’t know if a single Republican is going against her. We’re still going to ask the tough questions today and tomorrow,” Durbin said.
With Bondi unlikely to face a serious challenge to her confirmation, Senate Democrats instead turned their attention to Trump’s pick to run the FBI, Kash Patel. Bondi said she looks forward to working with Patel — calling him the “right person” for the job and defending his qualifications — and denying the idea that either she or Patel would maintain a list of enemies or break the law.
“What I can sit here and tell you is Mister Patel, if he works with running the FBI — if he is confirmed, and if I am confirmed, he will follow the law if I am the attorney general of the United States of America, and I don’t believe he would do anything otherwise,” Bondi said.
