Attorney General Merrick Garland informs Congress special counsel’s Donald Trump investigation has concluded
Jefferson Siegel-Pool/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Merrick Garland informed Congress in a letter Wednesday that special counsel Jack Smith has concluded his investigations into President-elect Donald Trump.
Garland informed members of Congress — as required by internal department regulations — that at no time did he interfere in to overrule Smith during the process of his investigation, according to the letter released by the Department of Justice.
Garland also acknowledged in the letter that at this time he is currently barred by district Judge Aileen Cannon from releasing the report outside of the Justice Department, but intends to make Volume One of the report regarding Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election available to the public once he is “permitted to do so” by the courts.
Garland further confirmed he plans to make available the volume of the report pertaining to Trump’s classified documents case available to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for closed-door review as soon as the 11th Circuit permits him to do so.
Volume Two will not be released as of yet due to ongoing court proceedings against Trump’s co-defendants.
“Consistent with local court rules and Department policy, and to avoid any risk of prejudice to defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, whose criminal cases remain pending, I have determined, at the recommendation of the Special Counsel, that Volume Two should not be made public so long as those defendants’ criminal proceedings are ongoing,” Garland wrote.
He continued, “I have determined that once those criminal proceedings have concluded, releasing Volume Two of the Report to you and to the public would also be in the public interest, consistent with law and Department policy.”
The letter was addressed to Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Jamie Raskin, D-Md.
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate is poised to hold a vote to confirm Pete Hegseth, President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as secretary of defense, late Friday evening.
Though Hegseth’s nomination has faced scrutiny from a number of Senate Republicans, it is likely that he will have the votes to be confirmed with the support of only Republicans when his nomination comes up for final consideration before the upper chamber.
Hegseth, a former “Fox and Friends” television anchor, was nominated by Trump in November to lead the Defense Department. In the time since his nomination was announced, Hegseth has been scrutinized for a number of accusations made against him, including those of sexual assault and financial mismanagement of two different veterans organizations.
Hegseth has fiercely denied the allegations. He appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee for a public hearing earlier this month, where he asserted to the panel that he was a “changed man.”
“I am not a perfect person, but redemption is real,” he told the panel.
During the same hearing, he affirmed his promise to restore the “warfighting ethos” of the DOD, touting his experience in the National Guard.
It was enough to win over the support of most Republicans in the Senate, including several of those who were initially skeptical.
“He articulated a clear vision of the Pentagon, and it was clear to anyone who listened that he is going to bring energy and fresh ideas to shake up the department’s stagnant bureaucracy,” Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a floor speech endorsing Hegseth on Thursday. “He will restore a warfighting ethos and relentlessly focused on the military’s core mission: to deter conflict and, if necessary, to win a war.”
The Senate Armed Services Committee advanced his nomination on a party-line vote on Monday. Then, in a closely watched moment on Thursday, Hegseth’s nomination passed a key test vote that set the table for Friday’s vote of final passage.
The nomination only required a simple majority in the Senate to advance, and it cleared the threshold narrowly, with only GOP backing.
But Hegseth did lose the support of two Senate Republicans during that Thursday vote. Those two Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, are once again expected to cast votes against Hegseth during a final vote on Friday.
In a statement, Murkowski explained that she could not support Hegseth due to concerns about this character and lack of experience.
“I believe that character is the defining trait required of the Secretary of Defense and must be prioritized without compromise,” Murkowski said in the post. “The leader of the Department of Defense must demonstrate and model the standards of behavior and character we expect of all servicemembers, and Mr. Hegseth’s nomination to the role poses significant concerns that I cannot overlook.”
Collins took issue with comments Hegseth made in the past about his belief that women should not serve in combat roles in the military. Though Hegseth has since changed his tune on that, Collins said she was unconvinced.
“I am also concerned about multiple statements, including some in the months just before he was nominated, that Mr. Hegseth has made about women serving in the military,” Collins said. “He and I had a candid conversation in December about his past statements and apparently evolving views. I am not convinced that his position on women serving in combat roles has changed.”
Trump expressed confidence in Hegseth ahead of the vote on Friday, though he added, “You’ll never know what’s going to happen.”
Two other closely watched Republicans, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former GOP leader, and North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, ultimately cast votes in favor of advancing Hegseth’s nomination, though there’s still a chance they change their views during Friday’s final vote, and the president questioned whether McConnell will vote no on Hegseth Friday morning.
Tillis, for example, said he’s still considering the most recent slate of allegations against Hegseth, leveled in an affidavit from Hegseth’s former sister-in-law Danielle Hegseth. In that affidavit, which ABC News obtained, Danielle Hegseth attested that Pete Hegseth’s ex-wife Samantha told her she “once hid in her closet from Hegseth because she feared for her personal safety” in the home they shared during their marriage. It also detailed episodes of binge drinking by Pete Hegseth.
An attorney for Pete Hegseth denied these allegations, and allegations of abuse were also rejected by his ex-wife.
Tillis said he so far has not found credible evidence to back many of the allegations that have be levied against Pete Hegseth but that he’s still doing his vetting on these most recent developments.
“I am in the process of completing due diligence on what appears to be the last allegation. All the other ones I couldn’t conclude had validity,” Tillis said Thursday. “So I’m talking to people that can give me data inputs. It all goes back to the same thing — first-hand, eye-witness, corroborated account.”
Pete Hegseth can afford to lose three Republicans when he is voted on later Friday. If one more Republican flips his or her vote, he will need the tiebreaking vote of Vice President J.D. Vance to be confirmed.
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump and his allies have vowed to radically shift American policy from Day 1.
From mass deportations to eliminating the Department of Education, Trump’s policies could impact millions of people and communities across the country. However, experts say there is a big obstacle that will make it harder — if not impossible — for the incoming administration to implement these plans: States and municipalities.
Alison LaCroix, professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, told ABC News that the power to regulate and implement key laws lies strictly within the states and many local leaders have already been working to prepare for a possible future Trump administration.
“The states have a lot of levers in the constitutional system, legal system and other systems,” she said. “This usually comes as a lot of shock to people who don’t know how much power they wield but we’re going to soon find out how valuable they are.”
Other experts who have focused on some of the biggest sectors targeted by Trump, such as public health and immigration, agreed but said they are likely gearing up for a legal and policy fight that could last a long time.
Trump has said he aims to remove at least 1 million immigrants living in the country illegally from the U.S. as soon as possible.
Elora Mukherjee, the director of Columbia Law School’s immigration clinic, told ABC News that states can’t outright act as immigration enforcement for the federal government without an agreement.
“It is the principle that the federal government cannot order local law enforcement to enact federal priorities,” she said.
Democratic governors like Gavin Newsom of California and JB Pritzker of Illinois have vowed not to assist Trump with any mass deportation plan, and Mukherjee said their claims are not empty words.
She said states already showed their power during the first Trump administration by blocking Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from entering courthouses for potential raids and denying the agency detainers that would have kept jailed immigrants in custody longer without an arraignment.
She added that any attempts by the Republican-controlled Congress to change immigration and deportation laws to take away rights from the states will take some time and likely be met with resistance even among Republican members who think it is too extreme.
“The Trump administration will issue many executive orders, but a large number that will be illegal and unconstitutional,” Mukherjee added.
At the same time, Mukherjee said that conservative states and municipalities may bolster anti-immigrant policies and make it harder for migrants and asylum seekers to gain a path to citizenship.
Sixty counties and police districts, many of them in Florida, have entered into 287(g) agreements with ICE, in which local law enforcement can conduct immigration policies on behalf of the federal government such as executing warrants and detaining undocumented immigrants, according to Mukherjee.
Florida also passed SB 1718 last year which cracks down on undocumented immigration with several provisions, including making it illegal to transport undocumented immigrants and requiring hospitals to ask patients for their immigration status.
Mukherjee stressed that states cannot try to enforce their own laws in other jurisdictions due to the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg vs. Pennsylvania. That case, which overturned the conviction of a man convicted under a state law that prevented slave-catching, held that while federal law supersedes state law, states are not required to use their resources to uphold federal laws.
“It’s extremely difficult and illegal for one state to impose their laws onto another,” Mukherjee said.
Even when it comes to executive orders, Mukherjee said the laws are mostly on the side of states and municipalities.
Trump’s “border czar” choice Tom Homan has already threatened to go after states and cities that refuse to comply with the president-elect’s deportation plans, including arresting mayors.
Mukherjee said there is no legal mechanism or modern legal precedent that allows the federal government to incarcerate local leaders for not adhering to an administration’s policy.
“Sanctuary city laws are entirely allowed within the U.S. Constitution,” she said. “The 10th Amendment is extremely clear. The powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. This is a bedrock principle of U.S. constitutional law.”
Public education State education officials are in the same boat when it comes to federal oversight, experts said.
Although Trump and other allies have made it clear that they want to eliminate or weaken the federal Department of Education, funding for schools and education programs lies mostly in the hands of state legislatures and local school boards, according to Alice O’Brien, the general counsel for the National Education Association.
“Those campaign promises in reality are much harder to achieve,” O’Brien told ABC News. “They would require federal legislation to accomplish.”
Federal oversight has little control over local school curriculum policies, she added.
O’Brien noted that much of the federal oversight on public schools lies outside of the jurisdiction of the Department of Education. For example, state school districts must adhere to laws set forth at the federal level such as non-discrimination against race and religion and disabilities.
“States and school systems can not run in any way that conflicts with the federal Constitution,” O’Brien said.
When it comes to funding, although the federal DOE does provide funding as a floor to many school districts, it is a small fraction compared to the funding that comes from city and state coffers, O’Brien explained.
Public health “It really comes down to a state-by-state basis in terms of how much dollars are allocated to the schools,” she said. “Ultimately it really comes down to how much money the state budgets have.”
Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association and former Maryland health secretary, told ABC News that state public health offices operate under the same localized jurisdiction and thus would have more autonomy on health policies.
Trump’s pick for the head of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been a staunch promoter of anti-vaccination policies and has pushed for the end of fluoride in water supplies.
Benjamin said he is worried about the effects of having someone with no professional health experience and public dismissiveness of proven health policies, however, he remarked that states and municipalities still hold immense power in implementing policies.
Georges noted that fluoride levels in the water supply are dictated at a local level, and many counties have chosen not to implement them. Federal health agencies can make recommendations but cannot block a municipality from implementing fluoridation, he said.
“There is no fiscal penalty for not following it,” Benjamin said of federal recommendations.
The same rules govern local vaccination requirements, he added.
“[The federal government does] control vaccine mandates at the federal level, with the federal workforce, but they don’t control the bulk of childhood mandates,” Benjamin said.
He noted that the country saw the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of state-run public health systems during the two years that COVID-19 hit the nation and the rollout of the vaccines. Republican and Democratic states all instituted shelter-in-place and social distancing rules during the peak of cases, Benjamin said.
“I do think we have a wait-and-see attitude,” he said.
In the meantime, several states have taken measures to bolster their state health policies, particularly when it comes to reproductive rights, through legislative action and ballot measures.
Power in state prosecutors One of the biggest ways that states will be able to “Trump-proof” their laws and policies is through state prosecutors and the courts, LaCroix said.
“We will see a lot of arguments in local government and what they can do,” she said.
Mukherjee said several state attorneys general were able to take Trump to court during his first administration and push back against immigration proposals such as his ban on residents from Muslim countries and deportation plans.
Mukherjee said despite the increase in Trump-backed judges in the federal courts, there is still the rule of law when it comes to immigration. For example, earlier this year, a federal judge struck down the provision in Florida’s SB 1718 that threatens felony charges for people who transport an undocumented immigrant.
U.S. District Judge Roy Altman, a Trump-appointed judge, issued an injunction against that provision stating that immigration-related enforcement was not in the state’s power.
“It will be harder this time around to win sweeping victories for immigrants and non-citizens … but federal judges across party lines reined in the worst abuses of the Trump administration the first time around,” she said.
LaCroix echoed that statement and said that partisanship can only go so far, especially when it comes to laws enshrined in the state and federal constitutions.
“Judges still have to give reasons for what they do and ‘because our party is in charge’ doesn’t hold weight,” she said.
(NEW YORK) — New York state Sen. James Skoufis announced his long-shot bid for chairman of the Democratic National Committee on X on Saturday.
Skoufis, who paints himself as an outsider, underdog and part of a new generation, said he intends to point to his successful record in his district that favors President-elect Donald Trump.
Arguing for a new script, Skoufis said, “Voters have spoken, and we need to listen, not lecture. We need to be strong fighters again.”
“I may be an outsider, but I know how to win,” he continued. “I will throw out the DNC’s stale, Beltway-centered playbook so that we rebuild, stop ceding ground to Republicans and start winning again — everywhere. Not just the party, but the country depends on it. We can win this fight together.”
Skoufis, who has served in the New York legislature since 2013, joins the field with Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor who has served as commissioner of the Social Security Administration since December 2023, and Ken Martin, a vice chairman of the DNC who also leads the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Jaime Harrison, the current chairman, is not seeking a second term.
The election of a new DNC chair will take place at the party’s winter meeting in National Harbor, Maryland, on Feb. 1, 2025. Harrison announced earlier this week that there will be four forums for candidates to make their cases to DNC members, who will also select a vice chair, treasurer, secretary and national finance chair, after the party lost the presidency and couldn’t obtain a majority in either the Senate or the House in the 2024 elections.
“As my time as Chair comes to a close and we prepare to undertake the critical work of holding the Trump Administration and Republican Party accountable for their extremism and false promises, we are beginning to lay out the process for upcoming DNC officer elections in the New Year,” Harrison said in a statement. “The DNC is committed to running a transparent, equitable, and impartial election for the next generation of leadership to guide the party forward.”
The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet on Dec. 12 to determine the Rules of Procedure for the contest, including what will be necessary to gain access to the ballot. In 2021, candidates needed the signatures of 40 DNC members, which is expected to hold for the 2025 race.
The 448 DNC members voting at the winter meeting includes 200 state-elected members from 57 states, territories and Democrats Abroad; members representing 16 affiliate groups; and 73 at-large members elected by the DNC, ABC News previously reported.
