Biden to make one of his first post-presidency speeches to defend Social Security
James Devaney/GC Images
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Joe Biden will deliver one of his first public speeches since leaving office 85 days ago, expected to speak about safeguarding Social Security amid Republicans’ current threats to it at a conference in Chicago on Tuesday.
Biden re-enters the public stage after keeping a relatively low profile in the time since he left office. After he gives the keynote speech at the gathering of the Advocates, Counselors and Representatives for the Disabled, Biden will have been seen now a handful of times in recent weeks — emerging even while President Donald Trump continuously blames his predecessor for a range of issues.
Trump has blamed Biden for everything from rising egg prices (during his address to a joint session of Congress in March, claiming “Joe Biden especially let the price of eggs get out of control”) to the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. Trump notably called Biden a “stupid president” during his contentious meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in March and refers to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as “Biden’s war.”
ACRD is billing Biden’s remarks as the first of his post-presidency, though the 82-year-old is known to have given remarks at two recent events, though less publicized. He spoke at an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers event in Washington last week when he became an honorary member of the union. In March, he spoke at the Model United Nations conference in New York.
“We are deeply honored President Biden is making his first public appearance at ACRD’s sold-out conference,” said Rachel Buck, ACRD Executive Director. “As bipartisan leaders have long agreed, Americans who retire after paying into Social Security their whole lives deserve the vital support and caring services they receive. As a result, we are thrilled the President will be joining us to discuss how we can work together for a stable and successful future for Social Security.”
ACRD is convening its conference to bring together policymakers and advocates in a bipartisan effort to support Social Security, the organization claims, especially as operational and staffing issues caused by cuts by the current administration have impacted the older and disabled Americans who use Social Security income and insurance.
Trump and billionaire Elon Musk have slashed 7,000 Social Security Administration jobs over the past few months in their efforts to cut down the federal workforce as part of the new Department of Government Efficiency, moves that Democrats have vigorously rallied against.
Biden’s speech comes as Democratic congressional leaders are billing Tuesday as a ‘Day of Action’ focused on Social Security.
“Across the country, Democrats are leading the fight to oppose the Republican plan to gut Social Security. Our Save Social Security Day of Action will mobilize Americans from every corner of the United States to push back on Donald Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE’s cuts to Social Security,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a joint statement.
“Republicans want to slash this critical lifeline by making it harder for seniors and people with disabilities to access their earned benefits. Shutting down local offices, firing large numbers of experienced constituent service workers and cutting phone services makes it harder for people to get their checks. Republicans are trying to kill Social Security from the inside — it is a cut by another name — and we won’t let that happen.”
Biden will be joined in Chicago by former Maryland Gov. and Social Security Administrator Martin O’Malley and the organization’s co-chairs — former Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow and former Republican Sen. Roy Blunt.
(WASHINGTON) — A framed copy of the New York Post’s cover featuring President Donald Trump’s mug shot has been hung on a wall just outside the Oval Office, photos show.
The mug shot, taken when he was booked at the Fulton County Jail in Georgia in 2023, can be seen in a hallway in photos taken when Trump met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday. The hallway leads to a private area in the White House.
Trump had turned himself in to the Fulton County Jail after he was indicted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Before a judge halted the takeover in February, President Donald Trump’s administration was planning to fire the overwhelming majority of employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and then fulfill the agency’s legal obligations with a skeleton crew, a top CFPB official testified on Monday.
During a lengthy court hearing on Monday, CFPB’s Chief Operating Officer Adam Martinez gave a full sworn account of the chaos and confusion that has consumed the federal agency that was set up to protect the public from unfair corporate practices ever since the Department of Government Efficiency and Trump administration officials moved to dismantle it.
His testimony provided a window into what is happening internally as DOGE spearheads Trump’s mandate to slash the federal government.
“Absent the temporary restraining order, the majority of the CFPB employees would have been terminated?” a lawyer representing the plaintiffs asked Martinez.
“The majority, yes,” Martinez said, adding the remaining employees would have been fired in later phases of the takeover.
Throughout his six-hour testimony, Martinez described the back-and-forth that played out in recent weeks among acting CFPB Director Russ Vought, DOGE, the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget. Officials toggled between halting and partially reinstating the agency’s work as they hastily slashed it and then scrambled to put pieces back in place to comply with law – in some cases losing key data and services along the way.
“I was having a hard time processing what was happening,” Martinez said, describing the early days of DOGE’s takeover of CFPB.
“So is it fair to say that there’s thought going into it, but only after? It’s like, shoot first and ask questions later?” Judge Amy Berman Jackson asked, after Martinez described how the agency was forced to cancel numerous critical contracts but rescinded some of those terminations soon after. Martinez agreed.
The hearing also shed light on the unique relationship between DOGE representatives and career civil servants, with Martinez frequently calling DOGE representatives the newly installed leaders of the CFPB.
“I don’t understand, why are you using them with leadership to refer to DOGE unless you had been told that DOGE was now your leadership,” asked Judge Jackson.
“They were designated as senior advisers, ma’am,” Martinez said.
“Senior leaders of the CFPB,” Judge Jackson asked.
“Correct,” Martinez said.
Martinez recalled everything from DOGE representatives’ first arrival at CFPB’s office in the first week of February — and the acting director’s email ordering CFPB employees to stop working — to the immediate chaos that ensued, as well as efforts by him and other career officials at CFPB to figure out what has been terminated and how to reinstate critical functions of the agency.
“There were a couple of high-priority issues that would have been devastating had it stopped,” Martinez said at one point.
“I was very, very concerned about the Consumer Response Center going down,” Martinez said, explaining potential backlash that could occur if those systems halted. He said he eventually coordinated a discussion between the head of that unit and DOGE’s representatives to “help them understand why his program was so important.”
On March 2, after much confusion and frustration as to what type of work CFPB was authorized to perform, OMB’s General Counsel Mark Paoletta, who has been representing Vought, eventually sent a letter directing CFPB employees to perform statutorily required duties.
But even after some units were told to return to work, they continued experiencing challenges — including loss of personnel and access to files of those who have left, according to accounts showcased during the hearing.
Jackson acknowledged the extraordinary situation workers at CFPB are facing, and she asked a series of questions to the witness.
“Would you say that sending out an order that says ‘Do no work’ is typical?” Judge Jackson asked.
“No,” Martinez responded.
“Would you say that canceling all the contracts before the analysis as to whether these are duplicative, worthwhile, not worthwhile, is typical?” the judge also asked.
“No,” Martinez again responded.
“Would you say that firing all probationary employees and two-year employees from the get-go is typical?” the judge asked.
“No,” Martinez responded.
“Would you say that trying to implement a brief without notice before the new director is even put in place, is typical?” the judge continued.
“No,” Martinez again replied.
“And would you say putting the rest of the employees on administrative leave with an order to do no work is typical?” the judge asked.
“No,” Martinez responded.
Jackson is considering issuing a preliminary injunction to effectively halt the breakdown of the CFPB, which she temporarily stopped last week. During Monday’s hearing, Martinez was grilled about emails that he had produced wherein he discussed carrying out the mass terminations despite the court’s order.
“You said that, in some ways, the delay was a blessing, because it gave you more time to figure out how to accomplish this wide-scale termination, right?” a lawyer asked.
“Yes,” Martinez said.
“And so you conveyed things like, there really isn’t going to be a CFPB now, right?” the lawyer continued.
“When you’re ripping out a number of people and functions, yes,” Martinez said.
(WASHINGTON) — Federal judges have been blunt in their rulings from the bench as the Trump administration has been hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its policies, layoffs and firings and other orders.
While many of the cases are still working their way through the system, several federal judges have been swift in issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, questioning the legality and constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s actions.
The president and his allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency has been at the center of some of the suits, have dismissed many of the orders in interviews and on social media. Musk has called for the impeachment of multiple judges, and Trump has also called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Boasberg has called on the administration to stop deporting Venezuelans as part of Trump’s executive order that invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little to no due process, as a lawsuit plays out.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Justice Department on behalf of five Venezuelans contending the deportees were not criminals. The judge argued that the accused deportees could face real harm and granted the TRO.
Several of the judges have faced increased harassment and threats, according to the U.S. Marshals Service and sources with knowledge of the situation.
Here are some of the major rulings issued by judges against the administration.
March 21
Boasberg said during a court hearing over the AEA deportations of Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvadorian prison that the administration’s use of the law was “incredibly troublesome and problematic.”
“I agree it’s an unprecedented and expanded use of an act that has been used … in the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, when there was no question there was a declaration of war and who the enemy was,” Boasberg said.
The judge noted that the Trump administration’s arguments about the extent of the president’s power are “awfully frightening” and a “long way from” the intent of the law.
The Trump administration argued that members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and the gang’s national security risk warranted the use of the 18th century act.
Boasberg vowed to hold the Trump administration accountable, if necessary, if it violated his court order from March 15.
“The government’s not being terribly cooperative at this point, but I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my word and who ordered this and what’s the consequence,” he said.
Boasberg also grilled Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign over his compliance with the court order to turn back the flights already in the air and questioned how the deportation flights were put together.
“Why is this proclamation essentially signed in the dark on Friday night, early Saturday morning, when people [were] rushed on the plane?” Boasberg asked. “To me, the only reason to do that is if you know the problem and you want to get them out of the country before a suit is filed.”
“I don’t have knowledge of those operational details,” Ensign said.
Boasberg also raised concerns that the rapid nature of the deportations prevented the men from being able to challenge the allegations that they belonged to Tren de Aragua.
“[What] they’re simply saying is don’t remove me, particularly to a country that’s going to torture me,” Boasberg said.
An attorney for the ACLU argued that those targeted by the AEA should be able to contest whether they fall within the act.
“Otherwise, anybody could be taken off the street and removed,” said Lee Gelernt, the attorney for the ACLU. “This is a very dangerous road we’re going down.”
As Ensign appeared to undermine arguments made earlier in the week about the timing of the order and struggled to answer Boasberg’s questions, the judge suggested the Department of Justice might be risking its reputation and credibility.
“I often tell my clerks before they go out into the world to practice law, the most valuable treasure they possess is their reputation and their credibility,” Boasberg said. “I just ask you make sure your team [understands] that lesson.”
Boasberg decided on March 24 that the men who were deported were entitled to due process in court.
“Federal courts are equipped to adjudicate that question when individuals threatened with detention and removal challenge their designation as such. Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge,” he wrote.
Later that evening, the Trump administration invoked the “state secrets privilege” in a court filing to attempt to stop the federal judge from learning more information about the flights.
“Removal flight plans-including locations from which flights depart, the planes utilized, the paths they travel, where they land, and how long they take to accomplish any of those things–reflect critical means and methods of law enforcement operations,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in the filing.
March 20
U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander slammed DOGE in a 137-page ruling that blocked the group’s unlimited access to Social Security information.
“The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion. It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack,” she wrote.
“The government has not even attempted to explain why a more tailored, measured, titrated approach is not suitable to the task,” Hollander added. “Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud. Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.”
The White House has not commented on the case as of March 25.
Reyes said the policy continued an unfortunate history of the armed services excluding marginalized people from the “privilege of serving.”
“The President has the power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving,” Reyes wrote.
“[Fill in the blank] is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; [fill in the blank] will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness; allowing [fill in the blank] to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order,” she added.
“First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve,” she said.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has slammed the judge on X and vowed to appeal.
Lawyers for the administration argued in court papers that the court “has broadly construed the scope of the DoD Policy to encompass all trans-identifying servicemembers or applicants” and claimed the Department of Defense’s new guidance “underscores Defendants’ consistent position that the DoD Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition — one that every prior Administration has, to some degree, kept out of the military.”
March 13
U.S. District Judge William Alsup scolded a DOJ attorney during a hearing for a lawsuit against the mass firing of federal workers.
Alsup slammed the attorney for refusing to make acting Office of Personnel Management Director Charles Ezell available for cross-examination and withdrawing his sworn declaration, which Alsup called a “sham.”
“The government, I believe, has tried to frustrate the judge’s ability to get at the truth of what happened here and then set forth sham declarations,” Alsup said. “That’s not the way it works in the U.S. District Court.”
“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross-examination would reveal the truth. This is the U.S. District Court,” Alsup said. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth.”
Alsup bashed the government for submitting a declaration from Ezell he believed to be false but then withdrawing it and making Ezell unavailable for testimony.
“You withdrew his declaration rather than do that. Come on, that’s a sham. It upsets me,” Alsup said. “I want you to know that I’ve been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years and I know how that we get at the truth, and you’re not helping me get to add to the truth. You’re giving me press releases, sham documents.”
Alsup later ruled that thousands of federal workers needed to be rehired.
The judge determined the Trump administration attempted to circumvent the procedures in place for issuing reductions in force by asserting that the employees were terminated for performance reasons without providing evidence.
“I just want to say it is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said. “That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”
If the Trump administration wants to reduce the size of the federal government, it needs to follow the process established in federal law, he said.
“The words that I give you today should not be taken as some kind of wild and crazy judge in San Francisco has said that the administration cannot engage in a reduction in force,” he said.
His ruling is being appealed by the administration, which asked the Supreme Court on March 24 for an emergency stay.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued in her filing that the labor unions and nonprofit groups that challenged the mass firings lack standing, saying they have “hijacked the employment relationship between the federal government and its workforce.”
“This Court should not allow a single district court to erase Congress’s handiwork and seize control over reviewing federal personnel decisions — much less do so by vastly exceeding the limits on the scope of its equitable authority and ordering reinstatements en masse,” she wrote.
Jan. 23
Just days into Trump’s second presidency, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship and expressed shock in the order from the president.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades,” said Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” the judge told the DOJ’s attorney during the hearing. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
The Trump administration has appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Harris, the acting solicitor general, argued in a filing to the Supreme Court that the nationwide injunctions “transgress constitutional limits on courts’ powers” and “compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions.”
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” she wrote.
ABC News’ Emily Chang and Laura Romero contributed to this report.
