Republicans move to censure Democrat Al Green after he disrupted Trump’s address
ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans are moving to censure Democratic Rep. Al Green after his disruptions during President Donald Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night.
By Wednesday morning, several members of the GOP conference have been circulating different resolutions to censure Green, who was ejected from the House chamber on Tuesday night after interrupting Trump’s remarks multiple times.
Republican Rep. Dan Newhouse was the first to formally introduce a resolution on the House floor on Wednesday. His measure was introduced as privileged, meaning the House must take it up within two legislative days.
“Decorum and order are the institutional grounds for the way we do business in the United States Congress, and the sheer disregard for that standard during President Trump’s address by the gentleman from Texas is unacceptable,” Newhouse said in a statement. “A Member’s refusal to adhere to the Speaker’s direction to cease such behavior, regardless of their party, has and will continue to be reprimanded in the people’s House.”
The House Freedom Caucus also said on Wednesday that it plans to introduce a censure resolution against Green.
Green’s outburst happened within minutes of Trump’s address, when the president called his electoral victory a “mandate.”
Green, an 11-term Democrat representing the Houston area, stood up and pointed his cane as he shouted, “You have no mandate to cut Medicaid.”
Speaker Mike Johnson slammed his gavel and gave a warning to lawmakers assembled to maintain decorum, telling Green several times to take his seat. As Green continued to protest, Johnson called for him to be removed.
Johnson said after Trump’s address that Green should be censured and that he would “absolutely” put a resolution on the floor after its introduction. He told reporters, “it’s a spectacle that was not necessary. He’s made history in a terrible way. And I hope he enjoys it.”
On “Good Morning America” on Wednesday morning, Johnson also defended his decision to have Green removed.
“Al Green was trying to interrupt the entire proceeding. But look, I’ll just say this. If the Democrats want a 77-year-old congressman to be the face of their resistance, heckling the president, then bring it on,” he said.
Green told ABC News late Tuesday night he’d accept any “punishment” from his heckling as he was “following the wishes of conscience.”
“There are times when it it better to stand alone than not stand at all,” Green said.
“At some point, we’re all going to have to stand up,” he added.
(WASHINGTON) — Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency can continue to access sensitive records from at least three federal agencies after a federal judge in Washington denied a request to block Musk’s budget-slashing team from the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
U.S. District Judge John Bates, in a late-night ruling, denied a request made by a group of unions and nonprofits to issue a temporary order blocking DOGE from the sensitive records maintained by the three agencies.
Elon Musk has repeatedly targeted Bates over the last week on X – including calling for the judge’s impeachment – after Bates issued a decision in another case ordering multiple agencies to restore public health data after the Trump administration suddenly removed it.
“There needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one,” Musk wrote on Wednesday in response to a post about the judge.
The tech billionaire celebrated Friday’s ruling in a post on X.
The judge’s decision came down to the question of whether DOGE has the authority to “detail” its people to individual parts of the federal government where – as employees of that department or agency – the individuals associated with DOGE could legally access the sensitive records. To have that authority, DOGE would have to be considered an “agency” in the eyes of the law, Bates wrote.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that DOGE is not an agency — because it was created via an executive order — and therefore is not entitled to detail its employees to parts of the federal government.
Curiously, lawyers for DOGE have attempted to avoid the “agency” label during court hearings despite its “strong claim” to agency status, Bates wrote.
“This appears to come from a desire to escape the obligations that accompany agencyhood” — such as being subject to the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act — “while reaping only its benefits,” the judge wrote.
Ultimately, the disagreed with DOGE’s own interpretation of its status — determining it likely is an “agency” — and delivering it a surprise win by determining that DOGE has the authority to continue to access to sensitive records.
“For the reasons explained above, on the record as it currently stands and with limited briefing on the issue, the case law defining agencies indicates that plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency. If that is so, [DOGE] may detail its employees to other agencies consistent with the Economy Act,” he wrote.
(WASHINGTON) — Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy comes to the White House on Friday to ink a deal that would give the U.S. access to his country’s mineral resources — an agreement that President Donald Trump has cast a way to ensure American taxpayers get paid back for supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia.
“We’ll be digging. We’ll be dig, dig, digging. Dig, we must,” Trump said on Thursday, saying the U.S. would be “doing a substantial amount of work” in Ukraine “taking the rare earth, which we need in our country very badly.”
“It’ll be great for Ukraine,” he continued. “It’s like a huge economic development project. So, it’ll be good for both countries.”
Zelenskyy, meanwhile, has spoken about the deal in different terms — describing it as a means to an end: keeping U.S. backing.
If not the full-fledged military security guarantee he wants, Trump administration officials have said a U.S. economic investment on the ground in Ukraine could serve as a kind of barrier to a further Russian invasion.
“I will meet with President Trump,” the Ukrainian leader said on Wednesday. “For me, and for all of us in the world, it is crucial that America’s assistance is not stopped. Strength is essential on the path to peace.”
ABC News spoke to officials and analysts to break down what’s in the deal, and what the agreement could mean for Ukraine’s future and efforts to end the war after three grueling years.
What is — and isn’t — in the deal
Officials familiar with the negotiations say that under the terms of the deal, the U.S. and the Ukraine will work together to unearth deposits of valuable minerals and other natural Ukrainian resources.
Unlike the original proposal, this framework does not call for Kyiv to use the proceeds from the sale of those resources to pay the U.S. $500 billion — which the Trump administration previously characterized as “payback” for the roughly $183 billion spent in response to Russia’s invasion, according to the U.S. special inspector general in charge of overseeing Ukrainian aid.
Instead, the deal aims to create an investment fund for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction that will be jointly owned by both countries, they say, and that additional negotiations on the control of that fund and its operation will take place will take place after the initial deal is cemented.
Other factors will depend on the free market.
“The profitability of the fund is entirely dependent on the success of new investments in Ukraine’s resources,” said Gracelin Baskaran, the director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Meredith Schwartz, a research associate at the same program.
“Therefore, the response of private industry is key to the success of the fund and will determine how much value the United States ultimately derives,” they added.
But officials say the Ukrainians also made concessions. Officials say Kyiv initially wanted the terms of the deal to include concrete security guarantees for Ukraine — something the current framework lacks.
“However, the idea is that with joint U.S.-Ukraine investment in the nation’s resources, the United States will continue to have a stake in Ukraine’s security, stability, and lasting peace and therefore be incentivized to uphold and defend Ukrainian security,” Baskaran and Schwartz said.
If it proves successful, Baskaran and Schwartz say the U.S. may boost its mineral security — but that the results could take decades to come to fruition.
“Mining is a long-term effort — so the United States may not yield benefits for another 20 years,” they said.
Trump himself has acknowledged the uncertainty.
“You know, you dig and maybe things aren’t there like you think they’re there,” he said on Thursday.
A different tune from Trump
After repeatedly bashing Zelenskyy in recent days, Trump softened his tone on Thursday.
Asked if he still believed Zelenskyy was a dictator — an assertion he made just over a week ago — Trump answered, “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that,” before brusquely moving on to the next questioner.
Later in the day, Trump also offered praise for Zelenskyy and Ukrainian fighters’ valor on the battlefield.
“We’ve given him a lot of equipment and a lot of money, but they have fought very bravely. No matter how you figure it, they have really fought,” he said. “Somebody has to use that equipment. And they have been very brave in that sense.”
Ukrainian officials who have been urging Zelenskyy to accept the mineral pact are likely to see this turnaround as proof positive for their main argument — that signing off on Trump’s deal will boost ties between the Trump administration and Kyiv, while drawing out negotiations would further sour the president’s view of Zelenskyy.
But whether any bonhomie will last is unclear.
“Critical mineral resource access is the latest arena for Trump to focus his transactional methods of diplomacy,” Baskaran and Schwartz argue. “But the viability of the deal remains to be seen as tensions continue to rise between the two world leaders.”
Trump is not known for his patience, and some U.S. officials anticipate slow-moving results from the agreement could leave Trump frustrated.
Or, if the two clash during their high-stakes White House meeting, the president could become embittered toward Zelenskyy again even sooner where Trump is likely to spotlight potential benefits the mineral agreement holds for the U.S. and the Ukrainian leader is likely to push for additional American security guarantees.
But the president shared only positive predictions on the eve of the meeting.
“I think we’re going to have a very good meeting,” he said. “We’re going to get along really well. Okay. We have a lot of respect. I have a lot of respect for him.”
John E. Herbst, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, argues the very fact that the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump is taking place is a good sign for Ukraine.
“Zelenskyy’s visit highlights how far he has come from two weeks back, when Trump spoke of seeing Putin as many as three times in the near future, or even last week, when senior Russian and US officials were meeting in Riyadh,” he said. “Yet now it is Zelenskyy, not Putin, in the Oval Office.”
The other negotiations
While much of the public focus has shifted toward negotiations over the mineral deal in recent weeks, talks ultimately aimed at ultimately ending the war in Ukraine have quietly continued on a separate track.
On Thursday, American and Russian officials met in Istanbul for more than 6 hours to discuss increasing staff at their respective embassies in Moscow and Washington — a move Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously said was essential for furthering potential areas cooperation between the countries, including resolving the war in Ukraine.
Officials from sides reported a favorable outcome from the meeting, and predict that an larger diplomatic footprint could create momentum for peace talks and a potential summit between Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
As a chorus of European leaders have tried to encourage Trump to include American security guarantees for Ukraine to enforce a truce with Russia, the president has continued to say he trusts Putin to hold up his end of a deal.
“I’ve known him for a long time now,” Trump said. “I don’t believe he’s going to violate his word. I don’t think he’ll be back. When we make a deal, I think the deal is going to hold.
But ahead of his meeting with the U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, he added a potentially important caveat.
“You know, look, it’s, trust and verify, let’s call it that,” he said.
Clifford D. May, founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues it’s imperative that the president is clear-eyed in his dealings with Putin.
“As President Trump attempts to negotiate a halt to Russia’s war against Ukraine, it’s not unreasonable for him to show respect for Mr. Putin (as he has been) if he believes that will make Mr. Putin more likely to agree to concessions,” he said.
“But it’s imperative that President Trump harbor no illusions about Mr. Putin – about his character, ambitions, ideology, and his abiding hatred for American greatness,” May added.
(WASHINGTON) — Donald Trump’s administration has rescinded its sweeping directive that sought to pause potentially trillions in loans, grants and financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by ABC News.
“OMB memorandum M-25-13 is rescinded,” the short memo from Matthew Vaeth, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, reads. “If you have questions about implementing the President’s Executive Orders, please contact your agency General Counsel.”
The policy reversal follows a tumultuous 48 hours for the White House, as states and local governments raised concerns that funding for health care, law enforcement, disaster aid and infrastructure spending could be paused or delayed during the expansive rollout of the policy.
Amid the confusion, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., issued a stay of the policy through Monday as lawyers for the Department of Justice struggled to confirm the extent of the directive.
“Without this funding, Plaintiff States will be unable to provide certain essential benefits for residents, pay public employees, satisfy obligations, and carry on the important business of government,” 22 state attorneys general had said in the lawsuit challenging the policy Tuesday.
On Monday, the Office of Management and Budget ordered federal agencies to freeze any federal funding to activities that might be implicated by Trump’s executive orders, causing states, local governments and nonprofits to scramble to determine if their funding would be cut off. Less than 24 hours after the policy was revealed, the White House attempted to clarify the policy in a memo, saying programs that provide direct benefits to Americans — such as Social Security, Medicare and SNAP benefits — would be excluded from the freeze.
During the hearing Tuesday, the lawyer for the Department of Justice struggled to clarify exactly what would be affected.
“It seems like the federal government currently doesn’t actually know the full scope of the programs that are going to be subject to the pause. Is that correct?” U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan asked.
“I can only speak for myself, which is just based on the limited time frame here, that I do not have a comprehensive list,” DOJ lawyer Daniel Schwei said, adding, “it just depends” on the type of program and funding source.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
