Biden says he prays incoming Trump administration keeps focus on LA fire response
Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden said on Friday he prays the Trump administration continues the focus on the federal response to the deadly wildfires that have ravaged Southern California.
Biden said he expected the death toll to rise as he was briefed by federal and state officials in the Oval Office. At least 10 people have been killed, and more injured, as fires continue to burn through the Los Angeles area.
With just days left in office, Biden said they’ve been coordinating with the incoming administration on the federal actions being taken to assist in fire management and help victims recover.
“My hope is that they’ll have — at least acknowledge we have some significant experience in this, we’ve done really well on it. I’m praying that they continue the focus,” the president said.
More than 30,000 acres have been burned this past week as five fires sprawled from the Pacific Palisades to Pasadena. Roughly 150,000 people were under evacuation orders and thousands of structures have been destroyed, including local landmarks.
FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell, who is on the ground in Los Angeles, said the tragedy is one of the worst disasters she’s witnessed in her four years leading the agency and that the rebuild will be complex.
“This recovery journey is going to be long, but we are going to be there with them to support them every step of the way,” Criswell said as she virtually joined the White House press briefing.
Criswell said FEMA had enough money to immediately respond to the fires, highlighting the $27 billion provided for the agency’s disaster fund by Congress in December.
Pressed by ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce on what the cost may be compared to other natural disasters, Criswell said it was hard to put an exact number as they continue to survey damage but that they “know that this is going to be billions.”
Criswell, discussing the transition, said FEMA has a dedicated staff that will continue to support Californians and a “whole team” dedicated to working with President-elect Donald Trump’s transition operation.
“They’re providing regular briefings to them on a daily basis and so we’re providing whatever information that they ask for,” she said.
Trump has pointed blame at Democrats, including Biden and Newsom, and spread some misinformation as the fires unfold. Criswell was asked if any such misinformation came up during their briefings with his team, though she did not directly respond.
President Biden on Thursday announced the federal government would cover 100% of the recovery costs for Los Angeles for 180 days. That would include debris removal, which the administration expects to be incredibly costly, as well as temporary shelters and pay for first responders.
“I mean, they look like a bomb hit,” Biden said on Friday on the devastation. “They look like they’re actually been blown up, entire sections of the cities blown up.”
(WASHINGTON) — Lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee peppered director of national intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard with questions about her controversial rhetoric on Russian aggression, Syria’s use of chemical weapons, and government surveillance programs at her high-stakes confirmation hearing on Thursday.
But it was her statements about Edward Snowden, the prolific leaker of national secrets, that generated the most colorful moments of her three hours of public testimony.
Senators from both sides offered Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman, countless opportunities to withdraw her past support of Snowden, the former intelligence contractor who fled the country with more than 1 million classified records.
And while she acknowledged on multiple occasions that Snowden broke the law, she stood firm in ways that seemed at times to frustrate even some Republicans on the panel.
Gabbard has in the past called Snowden a “brave” whistleblower who uncovered damning civil liberties violations by the intelligence community. As a lawmaker, she introduced legislation supporting a grant of clemency.
On Thursday, she repeatedly refused to withdraw that characterization of him. And she repeatedly refused to call him a “traitor.”
“This is where the rubber hits the road,” Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet boomed inside the hearing room. “This is not a moment for social media, this is not a moment to propagate conspiracy theories … this is when you need to answer the questions of people whose votes you’re asking for to be confirmed as the chief intelligence officer of this nation.”
“Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America This is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high,” he continued.
She declined to say. Instead, Gabbard repeated that she felt his acts were illegal and that she disagreed with his methods.
“Edward Snowden broke the law,” she said. “I do not agree with or support with all of the information and intelligence that he released, nor the way in which he did it.”
But, she added, he “released information that exposed egregious, illegal and unconstitutional programs.”
Gabbard faces perhaps the most difficult route to confirmation of all of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks. She cannot afford to lose any Republican votes in the committee, and at least two members of the panel, Susan Collins and Todd Young, declined to offer their support after the open portion of the hearing concluded.
While she stood firm on Snowden, Gabbard backtracked on other matters, including her suggestion in 2022 that U.S. and NATO forces had provoked Russia into its war with Ukraine. Asked by Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., who bore responsibility for Moscow’s aggression, Gabbard was unequivocal: “[Russian President Vladimir] Putin started the war in Ukraine.”
She also said that she “shed no tears for the fall of the Assad regime,” referring to Bashar al-Assad, the former Syrian dictator who fled Damascus late last year. Gabbard was chastised in 2017 for meeting with Assad in person and later casting doubt on intelligence tying his regime to the use of chemical weapons.
Several senators also raised Gabbard’s past criticism of government surveillance programs, including the FISA 702 authority, which allows the U.S. government to collect electronic communications of non-Americans located outside the country without a warrant.
Gabbard expressed support for FISA 702 and explained her vote as a congresswoman against its reauthorization as a reflection of her stance on defending civil liberties.
“I will just note that my actions in legislation in Congress were done to draw attention to the egregious civil liberties violations that were occurring at that time,” Gabbard said.
But on Snowden, Gabbard refused to back down. Republican Sens. James Lankford and Todd Young presented her with several opportunities to clarify her views on the government leaker. Each time, she equivocated.
“Did [Snowden] betray the trust of the American people?” Young asked.
“Edward Snowden broke the law,” she said, “and he released this information in a way that he should not have.”
Gabbard did at one point back off her support of a presidential pardon for Snowden, who now resides in Moscow, where he is not subject to extradition treaties. In an exchange with Collins, she said the DNI does not have a role in advocating for clemency actions.
“My responsibility would be to ensure the security of our nation’s secrets,” Gabbard said. “And would not take actions to advocate for any actions related to Snowden.”
Collins said after the hearing that she has not made up her mind on whether she will support Gabbard’s nomination and was still reviewing portions of her testimony that she missed while attending a concurrent hearing.
But when asked if the jury was still out on her support, she said, “that’s correct, I want to make a careful decision.”
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, the committee chairman, said he would move to a vote on Gabbard’s nomination soon. The closed-door portion of the hearing continued on Thursday afternoon.
-ABC News’ Allison Pecorin contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — President-elect Donald Trump announced Saturday that he plans on firing FBI director Christopher Wray and replacing him with longtime ally Kash Patel.
The appointment must be approved by the Senate.
Patel has been a staunch supporter of Trump for years and served in his first administration under a number of roles. He has vocally defended Jan. 6 rioters.
Patel has said he would target journalists, former senior FBI and Department of Justice officials and turn the FBI into a museum for the “deep state” on Day 1.
“This FBI will end the growing crime epidemic in America, dismantle the migrant criminal gangs, and stop the evil scourge of human and drug trafficking across the Border,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.
The FBI and Patel did not immediately comment about Trump’s announcement. Trump can not make personnel changes to the FBI until he is sworn in.
Wray was appointed in 2017 after he fired Director James Comey, less than four years into his 10 year term. Trump claimed Comey “wasn’t doing a good job.”
Patel, 44, grew up in Long Island and earned a law degree from Pace University Law School. He first served as a public defender in Miami for nine years before moving to Washington D.C. in 2013 to work at Justice Department’s National Security Division.
Patel left the Justice Department in 2017 claiming frustration with the agency, especially with the handling of the Benghazi case.
He went on to lead the “Russia Gate” investigation for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, with a promise from Nunes that after the investigation he would help Patel get a job at the National Security Council in the White House.
As the self-described “lead investigator of the Russia Gate hoax,” Patel authored the so-called “Nunes memo” alleging that the FBI improperly eavesdropped on former Trump adviser Carter Page.
A major report by the Justice Department’s inspector general released in late 2019 found that the FBI was not impacted by political bias when it opened the investigation — though it outlined what it called “serious performance failures” on the part of agents as they vetted information from sources and sought surveillance warrants against Page.
In February 2019, Patel became Deputy Assistant to the President and “senior director for counterterrorism” on the White House’s National Security Council.
In February 2020, Patel took on a “temporary duty assignment” as deputy to the newly installed acting Director of National Intelligence. That November, after Trump lost the election, Patel was named chief of staff for the Defense Department, despite large critics pointing out that he was unqualifed for the role.
After Trump left the White House, Patel held a number of jobs including hosting shows on far right media outlets.
On a podcast two months ago, Patel said anyone involved in “Russiagate” should be stripped of their security clearances.
According to Patel, there is a “massive” list of such government officials, from the FBI and Justice Department to the CIA and U.S. military.
“They all still have clearances,” including those who left government for private sector jobs, so “everybody” should lose their clearances, Patel said.
Patel said he has personally “recommended” to Trump that the new administration also strip any security clearances still held by the 51 then-former intelligence officials, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA director John Brennan, who in October 2020, just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, signed onto a letter dismissing the public release of emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop as part of a “Russian information operation.”
Patel has also come to the defense of January 6th rioters.
He’s raised money for Jan. 6 defendants and their families, including by promoting the “J6 Prison Choir,” featuring Jan. 6 defendants still in jail, and co-producing their fundraising song “Justice for All,” which Trump played at some of his campaign rallies. And Patel once suggested Jan. 6 was “a free speech movement.”
Patel became a part of the investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
After news surfaced that the National Archives found some classified documents in boxes previously stored at Mar-a-Lago, Patel called the news “disinformation” and insisted he was there when Trump “declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government that he thought the American public should have the right to read themselves.”
Four weeks later, Trump named Patel as one of his official representatives to the National Archives, and Patel promised to “march down there,” “identify every single document that they blocked being declassified at the National Archives, and we are going to start putting that information out.”
Two months later, Patel’s claimed Trump declassifying documents were included in the FBI’s affidavit laying out why the FBI believed a broad search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was warranted. And Patel was subpoenaed to testify to the grand jury investigating the matter, but at first he refused to answer key questions.
He later returned to the grand jury and answered those questions only after being granted limited-use immunity. He has blasted the entire probe as unlawful overreach by a politically corrupted Justice Department.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson talks to President-elect Donald Trump as they attend the 125th Army-Navy football game Dec. 14, 2024, in Landover, Maryland. (Kevin Dietsch via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Democrats have a plan to take back power in Washington back from Republicans in two years: work with them now.
Democrats, who are already planning their comeback after being swept out of power in Washington last month, have said they’ll oppose President-elect Donald Trump and his allies when their values collide but are open to cooperation on a range of issues, including immigration, federal spending and entitlements.
The strategy marks a turnaround from 2017, when “resistance” to Trump was Democrats’ rallying cry. But, some lawmakers and operatives said, it also marks a challenge to Republicans for bipartisanship at a time when narrow GOP congressional majorities will likely mandate some level of cooperation.
“People want to see government work, and we’re going to hold Republicans accountable for whether they’re willing to help move things forward for the American people. So, if they aren’t, then absolutely, that will impact them at the ballot box,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., who led House Democrats’ campaign arm this year and will do so again for the 2026 midterms.
“I think we are telling them that we’re here to govern,” DelBene added. “And I guess the question is, are they serious about governing?”
Republicans are cobbling together an aggressive agenda that would extend Trump-era tax cuts, implement strict border measures and more once they take office next month. The efforts will either be split into two measures or combined into one — but Republicans’ intention is to pass them in a way that wouldn’t need to meet the 60-vote Senate filibuster rule.
However, for the rest of the upcoming 119th Congress, Republicans will have a 220-215 House majority, once vacancies are filled and barring any absences, and only 53 seats in the Senate, short of the 60 needed to unilaterally pass most legislation.
Democrats have already proposed potential areas of cooperation, even as they lick their wounds from a disappointing election and view Trump as anathema to many of their core beliefs.
“To win in 2026 and beyond, Democrats must focus on building an economic message centered on good-paying jobs and revitalizing manufacturing,” California Rep. Ro Khanna said. “But we have a responsibility now to try and find areas of common ground where we can deliver for Americans. I believe that starts with reducing the Pentagon’s oversized defense budget while strongly opposing any cuts to programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.”
“We are very open to working with the Trump administration,” added Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, the Democratic Governors Association chair. “But no doubt if there are things that they push us to do that that we think are wrong, legal, anything like that, we’ll draw the line.”
That attitude will leave Democrats, especially in purple states and districts, with some leverage — either to shape legislation, as they say they plan, or to hammer Republicans as obstinate, operatives said.
It’s very possible battleground Democrats are at times taken up on offers for bipartisanship or are made themselves to accept offers. Both chambers have their share of moderate Republicans, too, including Reps. Mike Lawler New York and David Valadao of California, and Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
But each chamber also boasts some Republican hardliners who view bipartisanship as a four-letter word and a sign that a piece of legislation isn’t conservative enough.
“This is how these battleground Democrats are anyway, but I think it will manifest itself in, ‘Take me up on this offer, let’s go.’ And if you don’t, then, ‘OK, I can work with that, too,'” said one Democratic strategist working on House races. “I think for a battleground Democrat, it’s a win-win approach. You have the possibility of working on a bill and a law which you can say, ‘I delivered,’ or you create receipts to bring back to voters to say, ‘I kept on trying.'”
However, some Democrats warned, the party must balance cooperation, even if just offering it, with attacks.
The base still finds Trump — and Republicans in Congress with similar brands — abhorrent, and the results in 2026 will be largely fueled by voter attitudes about the GOP’s control in Washington.
In 2018, Democrats took back the House in a wave largely fueled among their voters by antipathy for Trump. Capitalizing on that frustration could be key again, strategists told ABC News.
“The opportunity to work in a bipartisan way, to increase your own bipartisan credentials becomes very important,” said Dan Sena, the executive director of House Democrats’ campaign arm in 2018. “I just think it’s important at large for the caucus to pay attention to the fact that ultimately, in two years from now, the Republican trifecta is going to get a thumb up or a thumb down from the country, and that’s ultimately going to dictate who has control of House.”
“If I were the Democrats at large,” Sena added, “I would be pretty aggressive in holding the Republicans and then the Trump administration accountable.”
Still, nearly all Democrats agreed that the party should wage a two-pronged strategy, including both cooperation and criticism, and that each will go hand in hand when Democrats find themselves either in congressional majorities next month or having to deal with a Republican president even as they lead their states as governors.
“I think this openness to working with them is less that you are going to see actual collaboration, I think it’s that people are trying to set themselves up to have some credibility in other spaces to be against stuff that they’re doing,” said one former Democratic House aide. “It carries more weight and legitimacy if you’re someone who’s open minded to working with them, and then they take a hard right and you speak out.”
Either way, Democrats are ready to pounce heading into 2026, when both chambers of Congress and 36 governorships will be up for grabs.
“In politics, it’s always the right move to extend a hand,” said Jared Leopold, a Democratic strategist and former DGA staffer. “And if somebody chooses to slap you in the face instead, you better make sure you catch it on camera.”
