Kash Patel confirmed by Senate to be Trump’s FBI director
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate on Thursday confirmed Kash Patel, President Donald Trump’s choice to be FBI director.
The final vote was 51-49.
Two Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, voted against Patel. Democrats were unanimous in their opposition.
Despite his controversial nomination, Republicans rallied around Patel, arguing he is the right person to bring reform to the nation’s top law enforcement agency they allege has been corrupted.
“Mr. Patel should be our next FBI director because the FBI has been infected by political bias and weaponized against the American people. Mr. Patel knows it, Mr. Patel exposed it, and Mr. Patel has been targeted for it,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said last week as the committee met to consider and advance his nomination.
Though not all GOP members backed him. Collins, explaining her decision to vote against his confirmation, said there is a need for an FBI director who is “decidedly apolitical” and Patel’s “time over the past four years has been characterized by high profile and aggressive political activity.”
Murkowski voiced similar concerns.
“My reservations with Mr. Patel stem from his own prior political activities and how they may influence his leadership,” the senator said in a post on X. “The FBI must be trusted as the federal agency that roots out crime and corruption, not focused on settling political scores. I have been disappointed that when he had the opportunity to push back on the administration’s decision to force the FBI to provide a list of agents involved in the January 6 investigations and prosecutions, he failed to do so.”
Democrats, meanwhile, objected to Patel up until the last minute. Sen. Dick Durbin, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, held a press conference outside FBI headquarters on Thursday morning railing against Patel’s “bizarre political statements” on Jan. 6 to retribution.
He accused Republicans of “willfully ignoring red flags on Mr. Patel,” who he argued has “neither the experience, the judgment or the temperament” to be FBI chief for the next 10 years.
“Mr. Patel will be a political and national security disaster,” Durbin said.
Patel, 44, is a loyalist to the president and worked in a number of roles during Trump’s first administration, including acting deputy director of national intelligence.
Shortly after the November election, Trump indicated he would fire then-FBI Director Christopher Wray and tap Patel to take his place. Wray, first appointed by Trump in 2017, stepped down at the end of the Biden administration.
Patel has been a vocal critic of the FBI for years, and previously said he wanted to clean out the bureau’s headquarters in Washington as part of a mission to dismantle the so-called “deep state.”
He faced pointed questions from Democrats on those comments and more — including support for Jan. 6 rioters and quotes that appeared favorable to the “QAnon” conspiracy movement — during his confirmation hearings last month.
Patel sought to distance from some of his past rhetoric, and told lawmakers he would take “no retributive actions” despite his history of comments about targeting journalists and government employees.
Patel will take over an agency facing uncertainty and turmoil amid firings and other key changes.
The Justice Department’s sought a list of potentially thousands of FBI employees who worked on Jan. 6 cases, ABC News previously reported, prompting agents to file a lawsuit to block the effort.
President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday endorsed a spending deal that House Republican leadership said it had reached to continue to fund the government through March and avoid a government shutdown at the end of the week.
“All Republicans, and even the Democrats, should do what is best for our Country, and vote “YES” for this Bill, TONIGHT!” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.
The House began debating the new bill Thursday evening before a vote later tonight.
Earlier Thursday, House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole told reporters that House Republicans had reached an agreement among themselves. Asked if Trump is on board, Cole replied, “All I’ll tell you is we have an agreement.”
Cole refused to divulge any details of the deal, but he told ABC News that the text of the bill would be posted online shortly.
But in his post, Trump said the “newly agreed to American Relief Act of 2024 will keep the Government open, fund our Great Farmers and others, and provide relief for those severely impacted by the devastating hurricanes.”
He also said that the bill would push raising the debt ceiling to January 2027 from June of next year. Congress last raised the country’s borrowing limit in June 2023 and had suspended it until June 2025.
“A VERY important piece, VITAL to the America First Agenda, was added as well – The date of the very unnecessary Debt Ceiling will be pushed out two years, to January 30, 2027. Now we can Make America Great Again, very quickly, which is what the People gave us a mandate to accomplish,” Trump wrote.
GOP House leaders and Vice-President-elect JD Vance were hoping to appease both Trump’s demands that any legislation to fund the government also deals with raising or eliminating the country’s debt ceiling, as well as House Republicans on the right who are traditionally against any spending deal or debt limit increase.
Meanwhile, Democrats have refused to budge from the deal they originally worked out with Republicans that Trump and Elon Musk demolished on Wednesday.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the latest proposal “laughable” as Democrats gathered to strategize their next move.
“The Musk-Johnson proposal is not serious. It’s laughable. Extreme MAGA Republicans are driving us to a government shutdown,” he said.
Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin said it was unclear who Democrats are negotiating with — Trump or Musk.
Asked about Republicans who say they have now done their part and that Democrats would own any shutdown, Raskin replied, “It’s an intolerable way of proceeding… Democrats are going to try to figure out how to salvage the public good out of the wreckage just foist upon us.”
That bipartisan deal called for extending government spending at current levels until March and added other provisions like relief for disaster victims and farmers and a pay raise for members of Congress.
Things changed Wednesday after Musk began a pressure campaign on X with multiple posts opposing the deal. Later that day Trump and Vance posted a statement calling on Congress to “pass a streamlined spending bill,” with the president-elect echoing Musk’s threats of primarying any GOP member who didn’t comply.
Trump told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl Thursday morning that there will be a government shutdown unless Congress eliminates the debt ceiling or extends the limit on government borrowing before he takes office.
“We’re not going to fall into the debt ceiling quicksand,” he said. “There won’t be anything approved unless the debt ceiling is done with.”
Under current law, the federal government would hit its borrowing limit sometime in the spring of 2025, during the first months of the second Trump presidency. Trump, however, said he wants it taken care of now, while Joe Biden is president.
“Shutdowns only inure to the person who’s president,” Trump said.
Some Senate Republicans, including John Kennedy and Mike Rounds, expressed displeasure with Johnson’s bill and praised Trump for stepping in.
But Sen. Thom Tillis, whose home state was devastated by Hurricane Helene, said he’d do everything in his power to slow down the passage of any government funding bill that doesn’t include disaster relief.
Congress faces a deadline of Friday night, when the current government funding extension expires, to pass a new one or non-essential agencies would shut down.
House Republicans of every stripe were seen rotating in and out of the speaker’s office on Thursday — including House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, Majority Whip Tom Emmer, Texas Rep. Chip Roy and Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris of Maryland.
Jeffries told reporters that raising the debt limit as part of the government funding bill is “premature at best.”
“We are going to continue to maintain an open line of communication to see if we can resolve this issue on terms that are favorable to the everyday Americans,” Jeffries said when asked if he was speaking to Johnson.
Behind closed doors during a caucus huddle Thursday morning, Jeffries delivered the same message to Democrats: Republicans backed out of a bipartisan deal and now have to figure out a way to get out.
“This kind of chaos and dysfunction has real-world impacts on hard-working people,” Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., said.
Rep. Bill Keating, D-Mass., told ABC News that Jeffries quoted President John F. Kennedy to the caucus: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”
“He said, look, we kept all our doors open during this negotiation. We made concessions. Most of us weren’t happy with the outcome of this, but you have to do your basic job. He’s saying that will continue. We’re open to everything, but we’re not open to the kind of bullying tactics that Elon Musk is doing,” Keating said.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., quipped, “We had a deal. We negotiated a deal, and then Musk decided to change the deal. Do I call him ‘President Musk?'”
Texas Rep. Greg Casar, the new chair of the progressive caucus was also critical of Musk.
“If Elon Musk is kind of cosplaying co-president here, I don’t know why Trump doesn’t just hand him the Oval Office, or Speaker Johnson should maybe just hand Elon Musk the gavel if they just want that billionaire to run the country,” Casar said.
While many Democrats support eliminating the debt limit in principle, members left their closed-door meeting opposed to striking it now as part of a spending deal, stressing it should be a separate matter.
ABC News’ Emily Chang and Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.
(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) — The bipartisan House Ethics Committee on Monday released a scathing report concluding its yearslong investigation into former Rep. Matt Gaetz, finding “substantial evidence” that he had sex with a 17-year-old in 2017 in violation of Florida’s statutory rape law, and engaged in a broader pattern of paying women for sex.
The report also detailed evidence of illegal drug use, acceptance of improper gifts, granting special favors to personal associates, and obstruction, after Gaetz refused to comply with subpoenas and withheld evidence from the committee.
A woman testified to the committee that Gaetz had sex with her in 2017, when she was 17 and had just completed her junior year of high school, and Gaetz was in his first year in Congress. Identified only as “Victim A” in the report, the woman told investigators she received $400 in cash from the then-congressman that evening, “which she understood to be payment for sex,” according to the report.
“The Committee received credible testimony from Victim A herself, as well as multiple individuals corroborating the allegation,” the report says. “Victim A said that she did not inform Representative Gaetz that she was under 18 at the time, nor did he ask her age.”
While many of the allegations in the committee’s report have been previously reported, this is the first time the woman’s direct testimony about Gaetz having sex with her when she was a minor has been made public, along with corroborating testimony from others.
Investigators noted that while the former Florida congressman has “suggested that the allegations against him have been manufactured” and had called into question Victim A’s credibility, “the Committee found no reason to doubt the credibility of Victim A.”
The report details that between 2017-2020, records obtained by the committee show Gaetz paid nearly $100,000 dollars to 12 different women and to Joel Greenberg, his one-time close friend who pleaded guilty to numerous crimes, including sex trafficking Victim A.
While all the women who testified to the committee described their sexual encounters with Gaetz as consensual, according to the report, one woman raised concerns that drug use at the parties and events may have “impair[ed their] ability to really know what was going on or fully consent.” Another woman told the committee, “When I look back on certain moments, I feel violated.”
The report alleges that Gaetz “took advantage of the economic vulnerability of young women to lure them into sexual activity for which they received an average of a few hundred dollars after each encounter.”
“Such behavior is not ‘generosity to ex-girlfriends,’ and it does not reflect creditably upon the House,” the report reads, referencing the former congressman’s previous statement dismissing the allegations as someone “trying to recategorize my generosity to ex-girlfriends as something more untoward.”
“Based on the above, the Committee determined there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of Congress,” the report says.
Gaetz has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. The Justice Department declined to charge him last year after a yearslong investigation into similar allegations.
Earlier Monday Gaetz filed a lawsuit against the Ethics Committee in an effort to stop the committee from releasing its report.
“This action challenges the Committee’s unconstitutional and ultra vires attempt to exercise jurisdiction over a private citizen through the threatened release of an investigative report containing potentially defamatory allegations,” the filing from Gaetz said.
Gaetz in the filing asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to block the release of the report or any findings, which he says would cause “damage to his reputation and professional standing” that would be “immediate and severe.”
“The threatened release of information believed to be defamatory by a Congressional committee concerning matters of sexual propriety and other acts of alleged moral turpitude constitutes irreparable harm that cannot be adequately remedied through monetary damages,” the filing stated.
Gaetz’s lawsuit highlights that he is now a public citizen and claims he did not receive “proper notice” of the report’s impending release.
“After Plaintiff’s resignation from Congress, Defendants improperly continued to act on its investigation, and apparently voted to publicly release reports and/or investigative materials related to Plaintiff without proper notice or disclosure to Plaintiff,” the complaint states.
President-elect Donald Trump last month tapped Gaetz to serve as attorney general in the incoming administration, and Gaetz resigned his congressional seat shortly after. Gaetz subsequently withdrew his name from consideration for AG, saying his confirmation process was “unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition.”
The Ethics Committee was in the final stages of its probe into Gaetz when Trump tapped him for attorney general. The committee generally drops investigations of members if they leave office, but Gaetz’s resignation prompted a fiery debate on Capitol Hill over whether the panel should release its report to allow the Senate to perform its role of vetting presidential nominations.
Following indications last week that the committee would release its report, Gaetz took to X in a lengthy post, writing in part that when he was single he “often sent funds to women” he dated and that he “never had sexual contact with someone under 18.”
“It’s embarrassing, though not criminal, that I probably partied, womanized, drank and smoked more than I should have earlier in life. I live a different life now,” he posted. “I’ve never been charged. I’ve never been sued. Instead, House Ethics will reportedly post a report online that I have no opportunity to debate or rebut as a former member of the body.”
In its report, the committee concluded that it did not find substantial evidence that Gaetz violated federal sex trafficking laws, finding that while Gaetz “did cause the transportation of women across state lines for purposes of commercial sex,” investigators did not find evidence “that any of those women were under 18 at the time of travel, nor did the Committee find sufficient evidence to conclude that the commercial sex acts were induced by force, fraud, or coercion.”
According to the report, the committee conducted over two dozen interviews, issued 29 subpoenas, reviewed nearly 14,000 documents, and requested information from multiple government agencies as part of its extensive investigation into the allegations.
The committee also received written testimony from Greenberg but, due to credibility concerns, investigators said they would “not rely exclusively on information provided by Mr. Greenberg,” according to the report.
The committee also accused Gaetz of obstructing its investigation by ignoring subpoenas, withholding documents, and declining to answer questions about the allegations.
“Representative Gaetz continuously sought to deflect, deter, or mislead the Committee in order to prevent his actions from being exposed,” the report reads. “His actions undermine not only his claims that he had exculpatory information to provide, but also his claims that he intended to cooperate with the Committee in good faith. It is apparent that Representative Gaetz’s assertions were nothing more than attempts to delay the Committee’s investigation.”
The committee had been investigating allegations that Gaetz engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift, according to sources.
Earlier this year, the committee released a statement that it would continue its probe but would no longer pursue allegations that Gaetz “may have shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted a bribe or improper gratuity.”
According to the report, while several committee members did not support its release, a majority of its members voted in favor of its release on Dec. 10. In a statement at the conclusion of the report, House Ethics Chairman Michael Guest reiterated his stance against the release of the report on behalf of the dissenting members while acknowledging that he and other members do not dispute the report’s findings.
“We believe and remain steadfast in the position that the House Committee on Ethics lost jurisdiction to release to the public any substantive work product regarding Mr. Gaetz after his resignation from the House on November 14, 2024,” Guest wrote.
