Wyoming Rep. Harriet Hageman grilled at town hall about DOGE: ‘Where is this fraud?’
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Wyoming Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman tangled with a fiery town hall audience in her home state on Thursday night as she went back and forth with constituents over Elon Musk’s DOGE and cuts to federal spending.
At one point, Hageman sparred with a woman who said she was a retired military officer and Republican, who grilled the congresswoman over the evidence of alleged fraud that Musk and Republicans contend they have uncovered.
“Just to give you a little reference, I’m a retired military officer,” an unidentified woman said at one point in the town hall. “At 18, I rose my hand to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. … “And my question, having looked at Musk’s DOGE, you are a lawyer. Where is this fraud? Who? What company? What organization? What personnel are we going after right now?”
DOGE’s actions have come under fire, not only for recommending thousands of federal workers be fired, including many veterans but allegations, backed by President Donald Trump and the White House pertaining to what they say is massive fraud in government spending. The claims of fraud, which Trump outlined in his recent address to Congress, are not yet verifiable.
Hageman, fired back at the constituent, saying, “Oh my gosh, I’ll just start reading some of it. I’ll just start reading it right now, if you like me to. I’ll just focus on USAID spending right here.”
“I didn’t say spending, I said actual fraud,” the woman shouted back at Hageman.
“This is what it is,” Hageman retorted. “This is the spending associated with the fraud. This is the fraud. Spending is the fraud.”
“No, no, no,” the woman shouted back. “Go after specific companies or specific personnel that are committing fraud.”
“This is fraud. This is fraudulent spending,” said Hageman.
“No, it may be abusive spending, but it’s not fraud,” the woman replied.
“What I said was waste, fraud and abuse. Waste, fraud and abuse,” Hageman said back, before trying to give figures on USAID spending.
The same constituent then pressed Hageman over firings and whether or not they were actually making government more efficient: “Just because you’re firing somebody doesn’t mean that’s efficient because the job is still there. It still needs to be done,” she said.
“We will eliminate some of those jobs as well,” Hageman said. “Those jobs will be being eliminated. They don’t need to be done.”
At another point during the town hall, another woman pressed Hageman over what qualifies Musk to be making cuts to federal spending.
“You just described the cuts to the government right now as some kind of careful audit, but the cuts that DOGE has been making have been willy-nilly by someone who has never served in the government, has never run a nonprofit, who has 19-year-olds infiltrating computers and agencies and making decisions. So who is Musk accountable to? What qualifies him to be making these cuts? It’s not an audit,” she asked.
DOGE claims to have saved $115 billion but that full amount is unverifiable because there are only receipts for a portion of the claimed savings.
“As I said a moment ago, this is, it is an audit. It is the closest thing that we are ever going to get to zero-based budgeting in the federal government,” Hageman said.
“What I cannot understand, whether he is a billionaire, a millionaire, or someone who is, just as he says, tech support, all he is doing is going in and looking at every single agency and how the money is being spent. Do you think that you are entitled to know how your money is being spent?” she added.
(WASHINGTON) — As early as Friday, President Donald Trump is expected to invoke the Alien Enemies Act — a wartime law that allows the president to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy nation — as part of the efforts to carry out mass deportations, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The Department of Defense is not expected to have a role in the invoking of the authority, which could be used to deport some migrants without a hearing
There have been discussions inside the administration about invoking the act, multiple sources said.
Trump had previously said on the campaign trail that he planned to invoke the act.
The act hasn’t been used since World War II, when it was used to detain Japanese Americans.
During World War II, the Alien Enemies Act was partially used to justify the internment of Japanese immigrants who had not become U.S. citizens. The broader internment of Japanese-Americans was carried out under executive orders signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and not the Alien Enemies Act since the law does not apply to U.S. citizens.
(WASHINGTON) — After a weekend of confusion, the Trump administration on Monday afternoon told federal agencies they don’t have to direct workers to comply with Elon Musk’s request for information about their activities at work, and that doing so is voluntary, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
The Office of Personnel Management — effectively the human resources agency for the federal government — updated agency human resources officers on a Monday call over Elon Musk’s call for the Trump administration to fire federal workers who did not reply to an email asking them to submit an email listing their accomplishments from the previous week.
Adding to the confusion are Trump’s own comments Monday, when he told journalists in the Oval Office there was a “lot of genius” behind Musk’s proposal, and that workers would be “sort of semi-fired” if they don’t respond.
OPM did not respond to a request for comment on the instructions given to federal agencies.
In the latest effort by the Department of Government Efficiency to investigate efficiency and reduce the size of the government, employees were asked in an email from the Office of Personnel Management on Saturday to list five accomplishments over the previous week and reply by 11:59 p.m. ET on Monday.
Musk threatened on social media that employees would face termination if they do not comply. The original email sent to employees did not include such an ultimatum, leaving some employees unaware of the threat.
However, some federal agencies told employees not to respond to the OPM email, some advised that employees should reply and others said that replying is “voluntary,” creating uncertainty among the rank and file.
Musk’s ultimatum raised questions about how much authority he holds in the government. While the White House argued in a court filing that Musk has no true power, Musk doubled down on his ultimatum Monday morning, warning that “Those who do not take this email seriously will soon be furthering their career elsewhere.”
Trump endorsed the email while taking questions Monday with French President Emmanuel Macron.
“I thought it was great because we have people that don’t show up to work, and nobody even knows if they work for the government,” Trump said. “So, by asking the question, ‘Tell us what you did this week,’ what he’s doing is saying, ‘Are you actually working?'”
“And then if you don’t answer like you’re sort of semi-fired or you’re fired because a lot of people are not answering because they don’t even exist,” Trump said.
Asked later Monday about the change in OPM policy, a White House official said, “DOGE is moving fast, at the direction of POTUS, and that’s exactly the point.”
“It’s all about efficiency, even internally,” the official added.
In a statement, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “Everyone is working together as one unified team at the direction of President Trump. Any notion to the contrary is completely false.”
Mixed messages
Federal employees on Saturday began receiving the OPM email with the subject line “What did you do last week” that demanded they list “5 bullets of what you accomplished last week and CC your manager,” according to multiple sources and an email reviewed by ABC News.
The subject line came from Musk’s playbook: “What did you get done this week?” is the same message he sent to the CEO of Twitter (now X) Parag Agrawal before Musk bought the company and fired the CEO.
A spokesperson from the Office of Personnel Management said Saturday that “agencies will determine any next steps.”
Yet management at multiple agencies told their staff that they were waiting on further guidance and, in some cases, told them to hold off on replying, according to multiple sources.
Employees at the Justice Department were told that they did not need to respond to the OPM request, according to an email obtained by ABC News. The Defense Department told employees who received the email to “please pause any response.” The Pentagon official filling in as the Department’s top personnel officer said that DOD would review any performance of personnel according to its own procedures, but added that “when and if required” it would coordinate responses to OPM’s email.
Newly confirmed FBI Director Kash Patel also told staff to “please pause any responses” to the email.
Employees at agencies including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the United States Department of Energy were told by senior staff that they were waiting on further guidance and, in some cases, told to wait for further notice before responding.
NASA acting Administrator Janet Petro informed employees on Monday before OPM’s guidance went out that responding to the email was optional and that not responding would have “no impact to your employment,” according to an email obtained by ABC News.
“Employees may have already responded or may still choose to respond. You are not required to respond, and there is no impact to your employment with the agency if you choose not to respond,” Petro wrote in the email.
Other agencies directed employees to reply. Speaking to Fox News on Monday morning, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy explained why his employees should respond to Musk’s email.
“If you can’t come up with five things that you did, maybe you shouldn’t be employed here,” Duffy said, calling it an “easy task” that “happens in the private sector all the time.”
Leadership at the Treasury Department sent an agency-wide email Monday morning instructing all employees — including those at the IRS — to comply with OPM’s email by the deadline, according to an email obtained by ABC News.
However, the email still left some employees confused, particularly because it does not clarify whether failure to respond by the deadline could result in termination.
Federal workers who don’t follow Musk on social media could be unaware there’s an ultimatum on the table. While the administration did ask federal employees to list their accomplishments, the email did not state that those who failed to respond by the deadline would be fired.
Employees across agencies told ABC News they hadn’t seen Musk’s threats until they were asked for their reaction to them.
One IRS employee told ABC News that when they asked their direct managers whether not responding would result in them being fired, they were told, “We are only to adhere to official emails and ignore any directives not communicated through official channels.”
Another employee in management at the IRS said staff are “freaking out.”
Managers at the Department of Veterans Affairs told employees to respond to the email. One manager at the agency told ABC News that workers are “scared.”
“It’s not an exaggeration,” they said. “Everybody is afraid they are going to lose their jobs on a daily basis. There’s this fear that you’re going to open your email and you will be terminated.”
How much authority does Musk have?
It is not clear if Musk has the authority to terminate employees in this manner. However, he continues to act as if he does, threatening employees on Monday morning with administrative leave if they do not return to work this week.
White House lawyers attested in federal court that Musk “has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions.”
Trump aides have also said publicly that Musk is operating in an advisory capacity as a special government employee.
While Trump has said that Musk cannot do anything without his approval, the president has publicly heralded Musk as the leader of DOGE and lauded him for the job he’s doing in that capacity. On Saturday, shortly before the OPM email went out, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, “ELON IS DOING A GREAT JOB, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIM GET MORE AGGRESSIVE.”
-ABC News’ Devin Dwyer, Peter Charalambous, Selina Wang, Emily Chang and Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
Don and Melinda Crawford/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
(BOISE, Idaho) — The Idaho House has passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its 2015 decision on same-sex marriage equality.
The court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision established the right to same-sex marriage under the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The resolution comes after Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’s expressed interest in revisiting the Obergefell decision in his concurring opinion on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned the federal right to abortion.
Thomas, who issued a dissenting opinion in 2015 against same-sex marriage, wrote in 2022, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”
Lawrence v. Texas overturned a law criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct and Griswold v. Connecticut overturned state restrictions on the use of contraceptives.
The Fourteenth Amendment states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Respect for Marriage Law signed by former President Joe Biden in 2022 guarantees the federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages and acts as a limited remedy if the Supreme Court were to overrule the Obergefell precedent. The law does not enshrine a right to same-sex or interracial marriage nationwide, but instead requires all states to recognize these marriages if legally certified in the past or in places where they were legally performed.
Same-sex couples across the country have long had concerns about the fate of legalized gay and lesbian marriages.
In Rochester, New York, the city’s First Universalist Church asked themselves what they could do to affirm LGBTQ identities as a religious organization amid a rise in anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. So, they organized a “Big Gay Wedding” to officiate the marriage ceremonies of queer couples en masse with the support of volunteer photographers, florists and others from the community.
“We wanted to be able to provide the service for our community, to be able to celebrate queer love and celebrate queer joy, to have some time for folks to get married who might not be able to otherwise afford a marriage in a congregation, and we want it to be like this big and joyous and beautiful celebration that really brings our community together,” the church’s Reverend Lane-Mairead Campbell previously told ABC News.
Events like Campbell’s “Big Gay Wedding” have begun to pop up around the country, helping residents to make precautionary changes.
“We still have the ability to do this regardless of what happens legally in the months and years ahead,” said Campbell. “We understand that queer and trans people have been here and have existed in times when oppression has been great and where we have had to hide, but we have never ceased to exist … In my denomination, we’ve been doing queer weddings since well before it was legal, and we will continue to do them well after.”
The Idaho House argues that “marriage as an institution has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for more than two thousand years, and within common law, the basis of the United States’ Anglo-American legal tradition, for more than 800 years.”
The resolution states that the Supreme Court decision is “in complete contravention of their own state constitutions and the will of their voters, thus undermining the civil liberties of those states’ residents and voters.”
A 2024 Gallup poll found that 69% of Americans continue to believe that marriage between same-sex couples should be legal, and 64% say gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable.
Sarah Warbelow, the vice president for legal affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, criticized the Idaho effort.
“This cruel action by Idaho Republicans amounts to nothing more than shouting at the wind,” said Warbelow. “A majority of Americans of all political affiliations support marriage equality. Resolutions are not laws, and state legislatures lack the power to dismantle marriage equality. They cannot touch the guaranteed federal protections for same-sex couples under the Respect for Marriage Act.”
