As Hegseth fights to head Pentagon, Trump not working the phones to save him: Sources
Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, was back on Capitol Hill on Thursday to meet with Republican lawmakers as misconduct allegations continued to cloud his selection to lead the Pentagon.
Behind the scenes, Trump’s political team is focused on figuring out where female Republican senators stand on Hegseth, according to two people involved in the conversations. Trump’s advisers are fully aware that with such a thin GOP Senate majority, Hegseth’s fate could all come down to the women in the conference.
Sen. Joni Ernst, a key Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee that will hold his confirmation hearings, notably declined to voice support for Hegseth after meeting with him on Wednesday and then again on Thursday on Fox News, which Trump is known to watch.
Ernst told Fox News host Bill Hemmer she had a “very frank” and “productive” discussion with Hegseth. When pressed by Hemmer that that didn’t sound as if she had gotten to a yes on his confirmation, she replied, “I think you are right.”
Ernst is the first female combat veteran to serve in the Senate and a sexual assault survivor herself. Hegseth has faced allegations of sexual assault (which he’s denied) and previously said that women should not serve in ground combat roles in the military.
ABC News was told Trump has expressed to those close to him that Hegseth should have been more honest and forthcoming about the challenges he could face getting through the confirmation process given his history.
Trump, who is considering other options (a list that includes Ernst) for the role, has not been working the phones for Hegseth — as he did for Matt Gaetz.
Gaetz was Trump’s original pick for attorney general but said he withdrew his name from consideration as he faced his own allegations of sexual misconduct. Trump has since tapped former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi to head up the Justice Department, pending Senate confirmation.
Hegseth has told senators his mother has been making calls to senators on his behalf, according to sources familiar with the matter. He has also told senators he is open to a background check, according to multiple sources.
“The allegation was made about him being intoxicated at several times and so the questions that every member will be asking him led to his statement,” said Sen. Roger Wicker, current ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and expected to take over the chairmanship in January — presiding over Hegseth’s confirmation hearings.
Hegseth on Thursday was expected to meet with Republican Sens. Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Jim Banks of Indiana, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
Hegseth told reporters as he walked through the Capitol that he’d spoken with Trump on Thursday morning.
“He is behind us all the way,” Hegseth said when asked by ABC News’ Jay O’Brien what Trump had told him during their conversation.
When asked if he thought he had the votes to be confirmed, Hegseth dodged the question but said he was continuing to work his way through the process.
(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.
(WASHINGTON) — A majority of justices on the Supreme Court on Friday appeared inclined to uphold a federal law that would ban the video-sharing app TikTok in the U.S. after Jan. 19 unless its Chinese-owned parent company ByteDance divests from the platform.
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.
During oral arguments on Friday, concerns about intelligence threats posed by China and potential future weaponization of the app seemed to override concerns about potential infringement on free speech rights.
“Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent of TikTok is doing intelligence work?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked the company’s attorney, Noel Francisco.
Congress passed the law last April with large bipartisan majorities 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 heard 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.
Francisco, the attorney for TikTok, kicked off his argument on Friday by stating the law passed by Congress is a “burden on TikTok speech” and “at minimum” the court should temporarily pause the ban from going into effect.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending the law’s constitutionality, argued the Chinese government’s control of TikTok “poses a grave threat to national security” and the measure passed by lawmakers addresses that influence with “laser-like focus.”
Prelogar also addressed the First Amendment arguments made by the attorneys for TikTok and some users who would be impacted. She acknowledged that “millions of Americans enjoy expressing themselves” on the app but emphasized “the important thing to recognize is that the act leaves all of that speech unrestricted once TikTok is freed from foreign adversary control.”
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.
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem speaks during her confirmation hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Capitol Hill on January 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, the firebrand who gained a national spotlight during the coronavirus pandemic, was confirmed by the Senate on Saturday.
The vote was 59-34.
During her confirmation hearing, Noem said the southern border is “not secure” and that she will help to fix it.
“President Trump needs to achieve this mission because two-thirds of Americans support his immigration and border policies, including the majority of Hispanic Americans,” Noem said in her opening statement. “I was the first governor to send National Guard troops to our southern border when Texas asked for help and when they were being overwhelmed by an unprecedented border crisis. If confirmed as secretary, I’ll ensure that our exceptional, extraordinary Border Patrol agents have all the tools and resources and support that they need to carry out their mission.”
The Department of Homeland Security already shut down the CBP One app, which allowed migrants to make appointments at the border to claim asylum — something Noem promised the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee she’d do.
Noem will oversee 22 agencies with more than 260,000 employees who work on issues ranging from the border to federal disaster management to the Secret Service.
“As secretary, I will oversee the Secret Service, an agency that is in serious need of reforms. We all saw the threats to President-elect Trump last year and the consequences of failure,” Noem said. “Now, that should never happen again, and I’ve worked closely with my own gubernatorial protective detail, and I’m familiar with what works and what doesn’t work, and I’ll bring that experience towards strengthening the Secret Service.”
The incoming secretary said she will follow the law and implement reforms with no political bias, including with regard to disaster relief.
She added that “if given the chance to be secretary of homeland security, that I will deliver the programs according to the law and that it will be done with no political bias.”
