Biden’s letter to Trump wished him ‘all the best in the next four years,’ Fox reports

(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump has been calling Senate Republicans to push for now-former Rep. Matt Gaetz to be confirmed as attorney general as lawmakers continue to raise concerns over the nomination.

Gaetz was being investigated by the House Ethics Committee for alleged sexual misconduct and illicit drug use. But his resignation from Congress after being announced as Trump’s pick to lead the Justice Department placed the panel’s report in limbo.

Some Senate Republicans are standing by their calls to see the report, though many now say they will be banking on their colleagues in the Senate Judiciary Committee — known for often controversial public hearings — to do a fulsome vetting of Gaetz.

Gaetz’s nomination will come before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will vote on whether to send it to the whole of the Senate. Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Monday night he’ll leave it to the panel to determine what information they need to vet Gaetz, and whether or not that includes the ethics committee report.

“I’m not sure I know the answer to how that’s going to be handled,” Thune said when asked about the report. “I think that’s going to be a House issue, and then ultimately up to the Senate Judiciary Committee who is going to have the responsibility to go through the confirmation hearing and the process.”

Judiciary committee members say they believe they’ll get information on Gaetz during the committee process with or without the Ethics report. But it could be fiery.

“Whether we get the ethics report or not, the facts are going to come out one way or the other, and I would think it would be in everybody’s best interest, including the president’s not to be surprised by some information that might come out during the confirmation hearing in the background check, so we’re going to do our job and under the Constitution,” said Republican Sen. John Cornyn.

Cornyn seemed to suggest that one way that information could come out is by calling those associated with the allegations to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“It’s not critical that they release the report because we know roughly who the witnesses are, and soon they’ll be called before the judiciary committee,” Cornyn said.

If Gaetz makes it before the committee it is not yet clear what witnesses would ultimately be called to testify. Republicans could call one of these women, or their attorney, before the committee if they want to hear from them. But Democrats would also have the opportunity to call witnesses, and they are not ruling out calling the women who have made allegations against Gaetz to testify.

“That’ll be a committee decision,” Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said on Monday when asked about whether he’d support calling one of the women.

Calling such a witness has the potential to lead to a public hearing not unlike the high-profile Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination hearing, during which his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, testified.

Sen. Thom Tillis, who also serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, alluded to that process on Monday.

Tillis said he was inclined to “honor Speaker Johnson’s position” on the House Ethics Committee report. Johnson has said he doesn’t want the report released. But there are other ways for the committee to obtain information, Tillis said.

“You should take a look at the Kavanaugh hearing,” he said.

The belief that information contained in the report would eventually be known to the committee, either by leak, press report or FBI background check, was widespread among Republicans.

“As we all know, this place leaks like a wet paper bag, and I would not faint with surprise to find out that the ethics report at some point leaks,” Sen. John Kennedy, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, said.

But when some Republicans were pressed on whether they’ll insist on an FBI background check on Gaetz being completed, there was a bit of a lack of clarity. Sen. Chuck Grassley, who will likely return to chair the committee next session, said it would be up to the president to request a background check.

Gaetz has been working the phones, reaching out to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee urging them to consider his nomination through regular order.

“I got a phone call from Congressman Gaetz, and I congratulated him and he said,” Will I get a fair shake in the Senate?” Kennedy said. “And I said ‘Absolutely Matt, just come on over, answer all the questionnaires, tell us the truth, tell us what your plans are for the agency and I’m looking forward to it.'”

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said Gaetz told him he wants a hearing before the committee.

“He wants to move forward with his nomination and wants to be able to answer these things in public and have it go through the regular process, have confirmation here, which I think is good. We should do that,” Hawley said.

Hawley, however, cautioned against a Kavanaugh-style confirmation hearing, something he said was “not normal”.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation, said she, too, would be looking to the Judiciary Committee’s process. She thinks the House ethics report should be a part of it.

“I think the committee will have an opportunity to again engage in very significant vetting. It would certainly make sense to have something if the report was complete or close to completion,” she said.

Regardless of the committee process there remains skepticism among Republicans about Gaetz’s ability to be confirmed.

“He does have an uphill climb,” Sen. Joni Ernst, R-IA, said. “But I look forward to visiting with him about it.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump said he wants Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins surgeon and author who argued against pandemic lockdowns, to lead the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“He will work under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to, among other things, properly evaluate harmful chemicals poisoning our Nation’s food supply and drugs and biologics being given to our Nation’s youth, so that we can finally address the Childhood Chronic Disease Epidemic,” Trump said in his announcement.

If confirmed by the Senate, Makary’s job would be to oversee the FDA’s $7 billion budget and report to the health secretary. The agency oversees $3.6 trillion in food, tobacco and medical products, including some 20,000 prescription drugs on the market.

Here are three things to know about Makary:

Makary is a respected transplant surgeon who questioned his colleagues’ recommendations on COVID

Makary was known during the pandemic as an experienced medical expert willing to challenge his colleagues’ assumptions on COVID, although he was often criticized by his peers for cherry-picking data or omitting context.

He frequently appeared on Fox News and wrote opinion articles that questioned the value of lockdowns and masks for children. He supported the use of vaccines but opposed mandates and doubted the utility of boosters, at odds with full-throated recommendations on boosters from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among his views was that the U.S. government was underestimating the number of people who were likely immune to the virus. In early 2021, he predicted much of the country would reach “herd immunity” by that April, reducing risk of the virus dramatically.

That assumption, however, did not happen.

As restrictions eased and a new variant surfaced, virus-related deaths soared from about 4,000 a week to about 15,000 a week by September, making 2021 a deadlier year than when the pandemic began.

Makary stood by his assertion that “natural immunity” was still being underestimated by the U.S. government.

“One reason public health officials may be afraid to acknowledge the effectiveness of natural immunity is that they fear it will lead some to choose getting the infection over vaccination. That’s a legitimate concern. But we can encourage all Americans to get vaccinated while still being honest about the data,” he wrote a separate opinion article in The Washington Post.

He sounds a lot like RFK Jr. when talking about the ‘poisoned’ food supply, pesticides and ultra-processed foods.

After the pandemic, Makary began turning back to his initial focus railing against an overpriced health care system. He’s long argued that the system is broken, overcharging patients and running unnecessary tests.

He also began speaking more critically about America’s food system, echoing a message embraced by Trump’s pick for health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“We’ve got a poisoned food supply. We’ve got pesticides. We’ve got ultra-processed foods and all sorts of things that have been in the blind spots in modern medicine,” Makary told Fox News this September.

Kennedy also would require Senate confirmation to get the job.

In a later interview, Makary praised Trump’s decision to pick Kennedy.

“He wants to address corruption in health care and corruption in our government health agencies,” he said.

He warns against ‘drugging our nation’s children.’

It’s not clear exactly what Makary would do if confirmed as FDA commissioner, as much of his work would likely be steered by Trump and the incoming health secretary, possibly Kennedy.

But Makary has previously suggested an overhaul of FDA’s “erratic” bureaucracy, which he says was too eager to approve opioids and too cautious when it came to other drugs like the COVID antiviral pill Molnupiravir.

“For too long, FDA leaders have acted like a crusty librarian who gets annoyed when someone wants to borrow a book. But then give preference to people they like,” Makary wrote in a 2021 opinion article in Fox News.

More recently, he’s called for a ban on cell phones on schools, and praised Kennedy for questioning the use of anti-anxiety and anti-obesity drugs in children.

“What he is really focused on is this concept that we can’t keep drugging our nation’s children,” Makary said of Kennedy.

When asked if Kennedy can accomplish what he wants to do in four years, Makary told Fox News he’ll try by bringing in more scientists and letting “them do good work.”

Kennedy “is really the quintessential environmental health attorney of our era, and that may be the quintessential issue of our era,” Makary said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — After meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump appeared ambivalent about the debate over whether to craft two legislative attempts to reshape fiscal policy for his agenda or settle on one sweeping package in an “all-in” approach.

Trump told reporters that he had “a great meeting” with the senators, although it appeared that the closed-door meeting that lasted more than 90 minutes did not lock down an agreement on how to proceed.

“There’s great unity,” Trump said. “I think there’s a lot of talk about two [bills], and there’s a lot of talk about one, but it doesn’t matter. The end result is the same. We’re going to get something done that’s going to be reducing taxes and creating a lot of jobs and all of the other things that you know about.”

Despite Trump’s comments, senators in the room heard Trump loud and clear: His preference, though he’s open to alternative ideas, is one “big, beautiful bill” to deal with many of his legislative priorities in a single swoop.

But just because senators heard him doesn’t mean they agree with him.

There was hope going into tonight’s meeting with Trump, the Senate’s first since he won the presidential race in November, that it could bring the Senate, which has largely favored a two-bill approach, and the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson prefers a one-bill approach, into one line of thinking on the matter.

Senators leaving the room Wednesday night seemed unmoved.

“It’s no mystery we’re advocating for two,” Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said as he departed.

There were a number of senators, including Trump allies like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who forcefully made the case for a two-bill solution while in the room with Trump. Cruz and his allies want one bill to address border security, military spending and energy. A second bill addressing tax policy could come later, they said.

With little to no support expected from Democrats, Republicans plan to push forward through “reconciliation” — a fast-track process limited to spending and revenue legislation that needs only a majority rather than the 60-vote threshold in the Senate needed to pass legislation.

While the debate might seem in the weeds, it could have serious implications for Trump’s agenda. Bills passed through reconciliation give Republicans more wiggle room to pass certain measures that Democrats oppose. But these bills are cumbersome, bound by a number of rules about what may and may not be included, and will require the near-unanimous support of Republicans.

Senate Republicans continue to break with Trump and Johnson on the issue because they believe they can notch a win early in Trump’s presidency by breaking the package into two chunks.

“I expressed vigorously, as did numerous other people that the best path to success is winning two major victories rather than putting all the eggs in one basket and risking — a very real risk — of it not getting the votes to pass,” Cruz said. “I strongly believe the path that makes sense is to take up two bills. Why? Because that unifies Republicans. We can get that passed. We could have a major victory early on, and then to move to extending the tax cuts.”

Cruz said there was “complete consensus” among the senators on a two-part solution. “Not a single senator disagreed.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W. Va., who told reporters she served as the moderator for the meeting, said Trump was listening intently to their suggestions but she believes two bills provide the most viable path to victory.

“The two-bill approach that [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune had liked, I think is generally the direction the Senate has been wanting to go to get that quick victory,” Capito said. “I think there’s a lot of discussion that’s going to go on. What can the House pass? What does the Speaker think? So he [Trump] heard from us and from our leader that a two-bill strategy is very much alive over here and something we’re still very interested in. So no decisions were made.”.

Capito seemed uncertain if there would be cohesion with Trump moving forward.

“I don’t know — we’ll see,” she said, adding, “I think, you know, the leaders will get together with the president and they’ll make those decisions.”

Republican Whip John Barrasso will be a key part of rounding up votes for whatever package is ultimately advanced and he also sees two bills as the right direction to go.

“We think there’s a lot of advantages to get an early win and to focus immediately on the border, on energy and on the strong military,” Barrasso said.

Barrasso said he was there when the Senate used this same fast-track budget tool to implement the Trump tax cuts in 2017. That took time, he said.

“There’s a lot of detail to be done with that, and so that’s going to take awhile” he said. “I think we can much more quickly deal with the border, energy, and military funding.”

Still, Trump continues to prefer the one-bill approach backed by Johnson, senators said.

“I think he’s still open to whatever can work. I think there seems to be movement from the House to do one, and so I think that’s the way he leans,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said.

Another option that was floated was holding a “horse race” which would see the House originating a sweeping proposal that includes tax policy as its base while the Senate originates a more narrowly tailored bill that just includes border and energy reform then see which package gains more momentum.

“I said, ‘Well, Mister President, you love a horse race, why don’t you set it up as a horse race? And then whatever works best is great,'” said Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. “HIs preference is one bill, but I think he’s open to it.”

Trump reiterated his preference for one bill when he spoke to reporters on Tuesday, but said he could live with two.

“Well, I like one big, beautiful bill, and I always have, I always will, he said. But if two is more certain [to pass], it does go a little bit quicker because you can do the immigration stuff early,” he said.

Johnson said he hopes to have a bill ready by the first week in April, but it remains to be seen if he can get fiscal conservatives in his conference, who have long opposed all-in-one bills like the one Johnson is proposing, on board.

The speaker pushed back on Wednesday about the one-bill approach being a kitchen sink approach.

“This is not an omnibus spending bill, but appropriation,” Johnson said. “This is reducing spending, which is an objective we talked about. I’ll keep reiterating this: that just because the debt limit is raised, to give stability the bond markets and to send a message around the world that we will pay the nation’s debt. We are doggedly determined to decrease the size of scope of government and to limit spending, cut spending so you can you’ll see both of those things happen simultaneously.”

Johnson also intends to handle the debt limit in the reconciliation bill — without Democratic support.

“That way, as the Republican Party, the party in charge of both chambers, we again get to determine the details of that. If it runs through the regular order, regular process… then you have to have both parties negotiating. And we feel like we are in better stead to do it ourselves,” he said Tuesday.

But it remains to be seen whether Johnson can sell the fiscal conservatives in his conference on that idea. They nearly derailed the short-term government funding bill to avert a shutdown last month after Trump demanded that it dealt with the debt ceiling.

Trump will meet with groups of House Republicans at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida this weekend.

“He’s bringing in big groups of House Republicans to Mar-a-Lago over the weekend three days in a row to meet with and talk with all of our team members about what’s ahead of us and the challenges and how we can accomplish all this together,” Johnson said, though the speaker is not expected to attend.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.