With mass layoffs expected, judge to weigh blocking the dismantling of consumer watchdog CFPB
Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — After the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) fired its probationary workers as part of the Trump administration’s government-wide layoffs Thursday, the agency moved on to fire short-term employees Thursday night with most of the remaining staff expected to be fired Friday, according to a lawsuit.
A group of federal unions that is suing the Trump administration over its dismantling of the agency alleged in a court filing Thursday that the newly installed acting director, Russell Vought, plans to fire over 95% of the agency’s workforce as soon as Friday.
The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit are asking a federal judge to impose a temporary order to block the dismantling the CFPB, which they argue could have sweeping consequences for American consumers.
The firings, part of President Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to slash the federal government, would gut the 1,700-employee consumer watchdog agency, according to three CFPB employees who spoke to ABC News on the condition that they not to be identified out of fear of retribution.
“All term employees were fired tonight, and it looks like the rest of us will be fired tomorrow but for cause rather than via a [reduction in force] which means no severance I think,” one agency lawyer wrote in a message to ABC News.
“3 of my 4 teammates were canned,” another employee wrote. “Just me and my supervisor left, the only permanent employees.”
Employees were told not to work or go into the agency’s Washington, D.C., headquarters this week, and several employees said their credentials did not allow access into satellite offices in San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Atlanta on Thursday, two of the employees said.
The employees said the firings will leave all Americans more vulnerable to fraud.
“I’m worried about everybody. What about the people who use our complaints to get their loans straightened out or their bank accounts unfrozen? They’ve already tried calling the company and gotten nowhere,” an employee wrote. “Who will help them now? Will the companies get bold and screw over their customers without our robust oversight?”
“It’s going to be a nightmare,” the employee said.
“I’m concerned for every consumer out there,” another employee told ABC News. “There’s a lot of fintech companies and I don’t know what’s going to happen if we don’t have purview over that.”
The employee said she was also concerned about X CEO Elon Musk, the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, having access to the CFPB’s massive database, which contains information about companies that Musk’s planned “X Money” online payment service would compete with. The agency would also be responsible for regulating the X Money platform.
The employee also said she was alarmed at the way CFPB employees were being characterized by the Trump administration.
“A lot of people are actively giving back and serving” the community, she said of her fellow CFPB employees. “Some donate from our paychecks — donations for nonprofits, volunteering, donating, giving back to our community, fostering dogs, they’re involved in a lot of causes. I work with remarkable people who never stop serving.”
“Me personally, this was my dream job in college and I can’t even believe i got in, it was so competitive,” wrote the employee, who said she is in her fourth year at the agency after having worked in the private sector, so her pension will not vest. “It’s the dream job, what’s next? I’m too young to retire, I believe in the work we did, everyone I work with felt the same.”
(WASHINGTON) — The future of TikTok in the U.S. hangs in the balance at the Supreme Court on Friday when the justices hear a last-ditch challenge to a law that would ban the video-sharing app in nine days unless its Chinese-based parent company sells its stake.
The momentous case — TikTok v. Garland — pits one of the world’s most popular social media platforms against all three branches of the U.S. government, which have aligned over the idea that the app poses a serious risk to national security.
Congress passed the law last April with large bipartisan majorities last year to target foreign adversary-owned platforms that collect troves of data on individual Americans and disseminate propaganda or disinformation. President Joe Biden signed it; lower federal courts have upheld it.
ByteDance, which owns TikTok and is headquartered in China, denies any malign activity in the U.S. and has argued the law violates free speech rights of the 170 million Americans it says use the app each month. It has previously ruled out a sale.
An ABC News/Ipsos poll last spring showed 34% of adults said they used the app, which matches an estimate from the Pew Research Center. Pew also reports that 63% of 13- to 17-year-olds use the platform. Together, these add up to about 103 million users.
The poll showed just 12% of adults reported using TikTok “often,” 10% said they used it “occasionally” and 12% said they use the app “rarely.”
Lower courts have rejected the company’s First Amendment challenges, saying the government’s justifications are compelling, given evidence of China’s extensive cyber espionage efforts and covert content manipulation.
“Unless TikTok executes a qualified divestiture,” Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote for the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, “TikTok’s millions of users will need to find an alternative media of communication. That burden is attributable to the [People’s Republic of China’s] hybrid commercial threat to U.S. national security, not to the U.S. Government.”
The Supreme Court is hearing the case on an unusually fast track, just days before a ban on TikTok is set to take effect on Jan. 19. A ruling is likely, though not guaranteed, this month.
If the ban is allowed, it would become unlawful for app stores run by U.S. companies like Apple and Google to offer TikTok downloads or updates with new features or technical fixes. It would not become a crime to use TikTok, and users who have downloaded the app could likely continue to use it for now, technology experts said.
More than a dozen countries, including India, Canada, Australia, and Taiwan, have already blocked or restricted TikTok. In 2023, the U.S. government banned the use of TikTok on any federal devices.
If the ban is put on hold, it would signal that the court has serious concerns about free speech.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has historically been highly deferential to the government’s position on matters of national security, but the justices are also likely to be cautious about a precedent-setting decision that could silence a wildly popular communication tool.
One wild card in the case may be the position of President-elect Donald Trump, who once unequivocally supported banning TikTok in the U.S. but now calls it a “unique medium for freedom of expression.”
Trump asked the court in a filing late last month to pause the divestiture deadline in order to give him a chance to reach a “negotiated resolution” to save the app once he takes office on Jan. 20.
In an amicus brief, Trump’s nominee for solicitor general, John Sauer, unusually invokes Trump as someone who “alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government.”
Trump does not take a position on the constitutionality of the law and, legal experts said, does not provide a legal basis for the justices blocking or delaying otherwise lawfully enacted legislation unless they find it patently unconstitutional.
Both sides have already spent years trying to reach a deal to institute new privacy protections and independent oversight mechanisms that would assuage concerns of U.S. officials. TikTok had proposed creating a data security subsidiary, based in the U.S., and establishing strict limits on what user data could be accessed by Chinese authorities.
Top U.S. national security agencies ultimately deemed the proposals insufficient.
(WASHINGTON) — For the first time in U.S. history, military aircraft were used this past week to deport scores of undocumented migrants from the United States. Middle schools, Trump administration officials say, are now seen as places to target for immigration enforcement operations. And, according to President Trump’s “border czar,” every undocumented immigrant should worry they could be arrested at any time, even if they have no criminal record.
The “border czar,” Tom Homan, says it’s all part of the Trump administration’s effort to send a “clear” message: “There’s consequences [for] entering the country illegally,” he told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday.
“If we don’t show there’s consequences, you’re never going to fix the border problem,” he said.
More than 11 million undocumented immigrants are currently estimated to be living in the U.S. President Donald Trump has promised to take unprecedented action to remove as many of them as possible and stem the flow of more migrants coming to the southern border.
In his first several days in office, Trump declared a national emergency at the border, announced an end to the so-called practice of “catch and release” — when migrants claiming asylum are given court dates and then released pending those proceedings — and sought to overturn the long-held Constitutional right of birthright citizenship, a move that immediately faced legal challenges and was at least temporarily blocked by a federal judge.
As for the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the country, Homan said the administration will deport “as many as we can,” starting with threats to public safety threats and national security, Homan said.According to estimates released by House Republicans last year, based on government data, hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants in the country are convicted criminals or have charges pending against them. Government statistics indicate that in the past four years, hundreds of migrants were caught along the southern border with names matching known or suspected terrorists on a government watchlist. And Homan has said more than 2 million people were detected along the border but never captured, so authorities don’t know who they are or what threat some of them could pose.
According to statistics released by the Department of Homeland Security last year, a tiny fraction of those who reached U.S. borders in the prior three years had any kind of criminal record, and the vast majority of them involved nonviolent crimes, such as driving under the influence or previously entering the country illegally.
Homan told ABC News that the Trump administration is only “in the beginning stages” of carrying out its mass deportation plan, making public safety threats and national security threats a “priority,” but “as that aperture opens, there’ll be more arrests nationwide.”
And he warned that there will be “collateral arrests,” especially in the so-called “sanctuary cities” that he says are resistant to helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials locate and arrest undocumented immigrants already in local custody for other crimes.
“Sanctuary cities lock us out of the jails,” said Homan, who led ICE as acting director in Trump’s first administration.
According to Homan, that creates significant safety concerns: When an undocumented immigrant arrested for a serious crime is released by local authorities, instead of being deported, it “endangers the community.”
Nevertheless, Homan said that’s a time when ICE officers would likely make “collateral arrests.”
“When we find him, he’s going to be with others … [and] if they’re in the country illegally, they’re coming too,” he said.
He emphasized that anyone in the country unlawfully is “on the table.”
“It’s not OK to violate the laws of this country,” he said. “We have millions of people standing in line, taking the test, doing their background investigation, paying the fees that want to come in the right way.”
“So if you’re in the country illegally, you got a problem,” he said.
On Monday, during Trump’s first day in office, acting Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive telling immigration authorities they could conduct operations in so-called “sensitive” areas that he said were off-limits during the Biden administration.
“Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” he said in a statement.
Others, however, said the administration was simply creating fear within the immigrant community, with the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration saying that “turning places of care, healing and solace into places of fear and uncertainty … will note make our communities safer.
He said that as they prioritize national security threats and public safety threats, ICE officers might have to even go into schools because “many” members of gangs tied to South and Central America, such as MS-13, are between 14 and 17 years old.
In his interview with ABC News, Homan said that no other law enforcement agency is restricted from entering certain locations to promote public safety in the same way ICE has been.
“Name another agency, another law enforcement agency, that has those type of requirements, that they can’t walk into a school or doctor’s office or a medical campus,” he said. “No other agency is held to those standards.”
“These are well-trained [ICE] officers with a lot of discretion, and when it comes to a sensitive location, there’s still going to be supervisory review,” he said. “But ICE officers should have discretion to decide if a national security threat or a public safety threat [is] in one of these facilities.”
Homan said anyone already in the country unlawfully “should leave,” and those looking to claim asylum should “do it the legal way.”
“Go to the embassy, go to the point of entry,” he said. “You shouldn’t come to this country and ask to get asylum and the first thing you do is break our laws by entering illegally.”
In the meantime, Homan said the Trump administration is using not just the military but the “whole” government, including the Justice Department, to support its mass deportation plan, which allows ICE officers to concentrate on conducting enforcement operations.
But Homan acknowledged that the federal government won’t be able to remove every undocumented immigrant in the U.S., and that his “success is going to be based on what Congress gives us.”
ICE doesn’t currently have enough funding from Congress to detain all of the undocumented immigrants that the Trump administration says it hopes to arrest.
“I’m being realistic,” he said. “We can do what we can with the money we have. We’re going to try to be efficient. But with more money we have, the more we can accomplish.”
“What price [do] you put on national security?” he added. “When you … don’t secure that border, that’s when national security threats enter the country. That’s when sex trafficking goes up. That’s when, you know, that’s when the fentanyl comes in.”
As for what success practically looks like at the end of the Trump administration, Homan said: “Our success every day is taking a public safety threat off the streets or getting a national security threat out of here.”
(WASHINGTON) — Pete Hegseth’s attorney has threatened legal action against a woman who accused President-elect Donald Trump’s selection for defense secretary of sexual assault — if she repeats what he calls “false” claims and his client ultimately fails to get confirmed.
Tim Parlatore said in an interview on CNN Thursday night that a confidentiality agreement covering both her and Hegseth, part of a 2020 settlement with the former Fox News host, is no longer in effect, and that the unidentified woman, who filed a police report in 2017 alleging Hegseth sexually assaulted her in a hotel, is now free to speak publicly about the case.
However, Parlatore said he would consider a lawsuit against the woman for civil extortion or defamation if she made what he called false claims that jeopardized his client’s future in the Trump administration or “his future employment opportunities.”
“If she doesn’t tell the truth, if she repeats these false statements, then she will be subject to a defamation lawsuit. But now that she — and she’s well aware of that, her attorney was well aware that because of the breach of the agreement that is no longer in any force, in effect, she is free to speak if she wants,” the attorney said.
Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee that would hold Hegseth’s confirmation hearings, told CNN Thursday that the threat to potentially sue Hegseth’s accuser is meant to intimidate her and is “reprehensible.”
“What they’re doing, essentially, is threatening or intimidating a potential witness,” he said.
Details of her allegations about the October 2017 incident were compiled in a Monterey Police Department report released last month. At the time, the woman told investigators that she encountered Hegseth at an event afterparty at a California hotel where both had been drinking.
The woman claimed she did not recall how she ended up in Hegseth’s room later and said he sexually assaulted her, according to the report. Hegseth “took her phone from her hands” and, when she attempted to leave, “blocked the door with his body,” according to what she told investigators.
Hegseth told investigators the sexual encounter was consensual. No charges were brought. However in December 2020, Hegseth paid the woman an undisclosed sum as part of a settlement because he feared his career would suffer if her allegations were made public, according to Parlatore.
Hegseth has repeatedly reiterated that he was not charged and has denied the assault allegations.
He has come under heavy fire over the last few weeks over news reports about the incident and other allegations of heavy drinking, mismanagement, extramarital affairs and other controversies.
Trump has stood by his selection and Hegseth has dismissed questions about whether he would withdraw.
