Byron Donalds: Using military for deportations would be a ‘last resort’
ABC News
Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., a prominent ally of Donald Trump, downplayed the prospects of the military having a major role in what the president-elect has previewed as a massive deportation effort once he takes office.
Speaking with “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz, Donalds said that local and federal law enforcement like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will take the lead on deportations, which he said would focus on immigrants convicted of crimes and those who have already been given legal deportation orders but remain in the country.
“When you’re talking about military assets being used, that’s only in an extreme last resort. There are more than 6,000 officers who have who have dedicated their lives to having to remove illegal aliens from our country, people who already have a legal deportation order, but it hasn’t been effectuated by Joe Biden,” Donalds said.
“I think if you’re going to use military assets, that’s in the last resorts, but that’s only for logistical purposes, Martha. And so, I think that what we have to be very careful of is not to try to throw out this idea that you’re going to have troops in the United States going door to door. That is not going to happen.”
Trump made immigration a cornerstone of his campaign, panning President Joe Biden for the record numbers of unauthorized border crossings that occurred in the earlier years of his term.
The president-elect has vowed to deport immigrants who are in the country illegally but also to scrap certain programs that offer legal status, including Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and other groups of immigrants.
Trump deported about 1.5 million immigrants during his first term, according to a Migrant Policy Institute analysis, but Donalds predicted that number will be topped during Trump’s second term.
“Just speaking with you anecdotally, it’s at a minimum going to be 2 million, but it’s going to be more, because the amount of people who already have a deportation order, people who are in our country who have committed crimes, people who have already been convicted of murder, they need to go and go immediately,” Donalds told Raddatz.
Donalds also predicted that stricter border enforcement and ramped-up deportation efforts will lead some undocumented immigrants to leave the country on their own, rather than get kicked out by law enforcement, which prohibits them from coming back to the country for 10 years.
“When you have an active deportation process, we do know that there are aliens who are going to want to go back to their home country. They’re not going to want to be caught up in the process of dealing with ICE, because if you’re deported through that process, then you will actually be barred from returning to the United States for a period of 10 years,” Donalds said.
“When you turn off the spigots of opening our borders, when you turn off the spigots of all this aid going to illegal aliens in the United States, and then you have a president of the United States and a government who is serious about repatriating people back to their home country, you will see that the enticement of coming to America is not going to be what it was under Joe Biden,” Donalds added.
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump has shown no qualms about making or sticking by picks for his Cabinet no matter the baggage they carry — even some accused of sexual assault.
It’s a far cry from the days when much smaller-scale scandals, such as marijuana use or hiring an undocumented worker as a nanny, sunk candidates put forward by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, experts said.
“We’re in untested waters,” Jonathan Hanson, a political scientist and lecturer in statistics at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, told ABC News.
Hanson and other experts said the public has become less concerned about some indiscretions, such as minor and one-time drug and alcohol arrests. Ronald Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Douglas Ginsburg admitting to smoking pot when he was younger would never have gotten much negative blowback today, Hanson said.
Two of Bill Clinton’s picks for attorney general — Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood — both withdrew amid questions over their hiring immigrants in the country illegally as babysitters. Former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle — Clinton’s choice for health and human services secretary — had to bow out after it was revealed he didn’t pay taxes for the use of a car and driver.
“It’s true that people’s standards have shifted, but the question is, when does it really cross a line?” Hanson said.
Trump’s picks bring the debate to a new level, he argued.
Trump himself campaigned in the shadow of his hush money felony criminal conviction and after a Manhattan civil jury found him liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll. Trump has repeatedly denied the allegations in both cases.
Matt Gaetz was already a controversial figure before his nomination while under a House Ethics Committee investigation for alleged sexual abuse and illicit drug use.
The former Florida congressman has denied all the allegations and the investigations by the Justice Department ended with no charges being brought and the House Ethics Committee ended when Gaetz resigned from his seat.
Trump’s pick to head the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, paid a woman who alleged he had sexually assaulted her in 2017, an accusation he denied and for which he was not charged.
The New York Times published an email Friday that Hegseth’s mother, Penelope Hegseth, sent him in 2018 in the context of his divorce from his second wife, saying he had routinely mistreated women for years.
“I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego,” she wrote in the message, according to the Times.
She said she later apologized and told the paper that she sent the e-mail in anger, adding “I know my son. He is a good father, husband.”
The New Yorker reported Hegseth was allegedly forced to step down from two non-profits veterans’ groups that he ran due to “serious allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct.” The magazine cited “a trail of documents, corroborated by the accounts of former colleagues.”
ABC News has not independently confirmed The New Yorker or The New York Times reporting.
Tim Parlatore, a lawyer for Hegseth, called the New Yorker piece, “outlandish claims laundered …by a petty and jealous disgruntled former associate,” in a response to the magazine.
Jason Miller, a senior Trump adviser, told CNN on Tuesday that the allegations in The New Yorker about Hegseth are “innuendo and gossip,” and said the Trump transition has no concerns about his pick to lead the Department of Defense.
Hegseth has said the sex assault allegation from 2017 was “fully investigated” and that he was “completely cleared” although a police report did not say that. He has avoided talking about the allegations while he met with Republican lawmakers over the last couple of weeks to garner support.
Hanson notes Trump named Gaetz and Hegseth after a majority of voters sent him back to the White House despite his own criminal indictments, including attempting to overturn the 2020 election. The sentencing for Trump’s New York conviction has been postponed indefinitely while the federal cases have been dismissed.
That, along with the Republicans taking control of Congress, Hanson said, might have motivated Trump to push forward with his controversial picks.
“It does raise the question if we are holding people to different standards than we used to,” he said. “There has been this notion to shrug it all off, thinking, ‘Everyone is corrupt. At least he’s open about it.'”
Edward Queen, a faculty member at Emory University Center for Ethics, said this thinking has been linked to what he said is growing distrust in the American political system.
“One of the consequences of the decline of trust is that everyone has done ‘it’ therefore ‘it’ doesn’t matter. And that’s disturbing,” he told ABC News.
At the same time, Hanson said, history shows the public traditionally has been against corruption, cronyism and other questionable behavior by public officials.
“There are voters in the middle who voted for Trump that would be unhappy for a vote for these troubling nominees,” Hanson said. “That will come back to hurt Republicans who may have ridden on his momentum.”
Jeff Spinner-Halev, the Kenan Eminent Professor of Political Ethics at the University of North Carolina, however, told ABC News that the general public has not kept up with the ins and outs of the confirmation process on Capitol Hill, and the outcry may not be that loud.
“It will have limited influence,” he said of the public reaction. “What will matter if a few senators are concerned about the controversies or competency of the candidate verses how much they care about the wrath of President Trump.”
The Senate must confirm each Cabinet choice, and while the GOP will have the majority, some Senate Republicans who back Trump also question whether his picks’ ethical issues make them impossible to approve, according to Hanson.
“Putting my shoes in a senator’s for a moment, they don’t want to walk the plank for a vote,” Hanson added. “If they feel that a nominee is too unpopular, they don’t want to stick their hand in the air and say ‘yes’ — but if they do, he said, they would need to weigh the consequences of looking the other way.”
He sees the fact that some GOP senators signaled Gaetz wasn’t acceptable as proof some standards still exist. For example, Gaetz withdrew his name from the nomination eight days after Trump announced it due to the increased scrutiny and more details about his scandals came to light.
Gaetz said in a social media post that his nomination process would have been “a distraction.”
“No one was really looking to defend this guy, and the message got sent to the president-elect’s team that this isn’t going to work,” Hanson said.
“I do think it is a positive sign because, at some point, lines were crossed. Some candidates are just a bridge too far, and it may be the case with some of the other appointees,” he added.
Steven Cheung, Trump’s choice for White House communications director and campaign spokesman, reiterated his claim that “voters gave President Trump a mandate to choose Cabinet nominees that reflect the will of the American people and he will continue to do so.”
“President Trump appreciates the advice and consent of Senators on Capitol Hill, but ultimately this is his administration,” he said in a statement after Gaetz withdrew.
Hanson predicted there will continue to be increased scrutiny of Trump’s Cabinet picks as Senate confirmation hearings get closer, but he warned that the opposition might have limits.
“It depends on how much fight will come from Democrats and interest groups that engage with politics. It will be interesting to see what happens because there is plenty of opportunity here for Democrats in the Senate to make a lot of noise,” he said.
“We will also be in a situation where there may be only enough clout and power to fight only the most controversial of nominees and let others pass,” he said.
Spinner-Halev said that Republican senators, in particular, may not want to cross Trump too many times and may just limit their opposition to his picks with the most baggage.
“One of the worries the Republicans will have is if a person [who is nominated] is incompetent,” he said. “The danger for the Trump administration and Republicans general is if these people are incompetent and mess up and then the public notices. This is what happened with George W. Bush and [Hurricane] Katrina where he said [FEMA Director Michael Brown] was doing a ‘heck of a job.’ That hurt him badly.”
Queen said there is a possibility that some Republican senators may put ethics before partisanship when all is said and done.
“It’s not unreasonable to assume that there are a number of senators who realize there will be consequences of their choices and their decisions that it will be bad for the country as a whole,” he said.
In the long term, Hanson said it is unclear if Trump’s selections will usher in a new norm of presidential picks who buck ethics and experience standards.
He noted that American history has shown several cycles of reform brought on by demand of a public frustrated with dysfunction and improper behavior, such as in the aftermath of the Nixon administration in the 1970s.
“Now that they see what is happening, they may be reminded what the Trump presidency was like the first time around,” he said of Americans who supported him. “There may be a bunch of people who say this is not what I voted for, and that could affect things tremendously.”
Spinner-Halev said the future will depend on how informed the public is over the next four years.
“There is a lot that happens in Washington that’s not in the public eye, and I think it’s important that the public keeps an eye on the bureaucratic ongoings,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — Since becoming President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard’s rosy posture toward Moscow has prompted some Democratic critics to suggest that she could be “compromised,” or perhaps even a “Russian asset” — claims the ex-Hawaii representative and Army officer has forcefully denied.
But former advisers to Gabbard suggest that her views on Russia and its polarizing leader, Vladimir Putin, have been shaped not by some covert intelligence recruitment as far as they know — but instead by her unorthodox media consumption habits.
Three former aides said Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party in 2022, regularly read and shared articles from the Russian news site RT — formerly known as Russia Today — which the U.S. intelligence community characterized in 2017 as “the Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet.”
While it was not clear to those former staffers whether or when she stopped frequenting the site, one former aide said Gabbard continued to circulate articles from RT “long after” she was advised that the outlet was not a credible source of information.
Doug London, a retired 34-year veteran intelligence officer, said Gabbard’s alleged penchant to rely at least in part on outlets like RT to shape her view of the world reflects poorly on her suitability to fulfill the responsibilities of a director of national intelligence.
“That Gabbard’s views mirror Russia’s narrative and disinformation themes can but suggest naïveté, collusion, or politically opportunistic sycophancy to echo whatever she believes Trump wants to hear,” London said, adding, “none of which bodes well for the president’s principal intelligence adviser responsible for enabling the [U.S. intelligence community] to inform decision-making by telling it like it is.”
Alexa Henning, a spokesperson for the Trump transition team, said in a statement to ABC News that “this is false and nothing but a few former, conveniently anonymous, disgruntled staffers.”
“Lt. Col. Gabbard’s views on foreign policy have been shaped by her military service and multiple deployments to war zones where she’s seen the cost of war and who ultimately pays the price,” Henning said.
‘The Russian playbook’
Former congressional and campaign advisers said it was unclear to what extent Gabbard’s views were shaped by what she read in RT — and they emphasized that she would consume news from a wide range of outlets, including left-wing and right-wing blogs.
But over the past decade, Gabbard’s views on Russian aggression in Europe have evolved in a particularly dramatic fashion.
In 2014, when Russian troops annexed Crimea, Gabbard — then a first-term Democratic U.S. representative from Hawaii — released a statement advocating for “meaningful American military assistance for Ukrainian forces” and for the U.S. to invoke “stiffer, more painful economic sanctions for Russia.”
“The consequences of standing idly by while Russia continues to degrade the territorial integrity of Ukraine are clear,” she wrote at the time. “We have to act in a way that takes seriously the threat of Russian aggression against its peaceful, sovereign neighbor.”
By 2017, however, her tune had changed. In a lengthy memo to campaign staff laying out her views on foreign policy, a copy of which was obtained by ABC News, Gabbard blamed the U.S. and NATO for provoking Russian aggression and bemoaned the United States’ “hostility toward Putin.”
“There certainly isn’t any guarantee to Putin that we won’t try to overthrow Russia’s government,” she wrote in the memo from May 2017, titled “fodder for fundraising emails / social media.”
“In fact, I’m pretty sure there are American politicians who would love to do that,” she wrote.
She also condemned the very sanctions she had previously supported, writing that, “historically, the U.S. has always wanted Russia to be a poor country.”
“It’s a matter of respect,” she wrote. “The Russian people are a proud people and they don’t want the U.S. and our allies trying to control them and their government.”
Gabbard’s sentiment in the 2017 memo is “basically the Russian playbook,” said Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO during the Obama administration.
“It’s dangerous,” said Daalder. “That strain of thinking is not unique to Tulsi Gabbard, but it is certainly not where you would think a major figure in any administration would like to be, intellectually.”
By 2022, at the outset of the latest Russia-Ukraine conflict, Gabbard suggested on X that Russia’s invasion was justified by Ukraine’s potential bid to join NATO, “which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border” — a narrative perpetuated by Russian propaganda channels, including RT, and denounced by the U.S. and NATO as “false.”
Gabbard’s messaging has at times aligned so closely with Kremlin talking points that at least one commentator on Kremlin state media has referred to her as “Russia’s girlfriend.”
A ‘nefarious effort’
The U.S. government first called out RT as a propaganda mouthpiece for the Kremlin in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, three years after Gabbard was elected to Congress.
This past September, the State Department wrote that it had evidence that “RT moved beyond being simply a media outlet and has been an entity with cyber capabilities.” The U.S. also issued fresh sanctions against executives at RT, including its editor-in-chief, who the U.S. accused of engaging in a “nefarious effort to covertly recruit unwitting American influencers in support of their malign influence campaign.”
The Justice Department also indicted two RT employees in September for their alleged role in what the DOJ called a scheme to pay right-wing social media influencers nearly $10 million to “disseminate content deemed favorable to the Russian government.”
In the decade since Gabbard arrived in Washington, experts say she has regularly promoted views consistent with those espoused in RT and other Russian propaganda channels.
In its 2017 assessment, for example, the U.S. intelligence community wrote that RT “has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks” and “routinely gives [WikiLeaks founder Julian] Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States.”
Gabbard has long been an outspoken supporter of Assange, arguing in a June 2024 appearance on “Real Time with Bill Maher” that “[Assange’s] prosecution, the charges against him, are one of the biggest attacks on freedom of the press, that we’ve seen, and freedom of speech.”
In Congress, Gabbard also co-sponsored a resolution calling on the federal government to “drop all charges against Edward Snowden,” the former contractor for the National Security Agency who supplied WikiLeaks with secret documents in order to expose what he called “horrifying” U.S. government surveillance capabilities.
RT frequently reports glowingly on Snowden, who has for more than a decade lived under asylum in Russia.
‘Undeniable facts’
But it is Gabbard’s framing of the Russian invasion of Ukraine that has most galvanized her critics in the national security sphere.
In March 2022, Gabbard posted a video to Twitter — now X — sharing what she said were “undeniable facts” about U.S.-funded biolabs in the war-torn country, claiming that “even in the best of circumstances” they “could easily be compromised” — a debunked theory regularly promoted by RT and other Kremlin propaganda channels.
Experts say RT and other Russian state-controlled news agencies have frequently capitalized on Gabbard’s public comments to support the biolab conspiracy theory and other disinformation, recirculating clips in which she repeats the Kremlin propaganda as evidence backing the false claims — effectively engineering an echo-chamber to magnify their propaganda machine.
Even so, Brian O’Neill, a former senior intelligence official with experience in senior policymaker briefing, expressed confidence that career intelligence officials can support Gabbard with “a constant barrage of new information” that will help shape her understanding of emerging world events.
“New appointees in such roles always bring preconceptions, but like her predecessors, she will be subject to comprehensive briefings grounded in solid evidence provided by individuals of high integrity and expertise,” O’Neill said.
“That said,” O’Neill cautioned, “Trump’s well-documented hostility and skepticism toward the [intelligence community] will shape the environment she steps into. If she adopts a similar posture, there’s a risk she might deprioritize intelligence community input or dismiss inconvenient truths presented to her.”
ABC News’ Shannon Kingston contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — Former president Donald Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday was framed as his “closing argument” in his bid for the White House and as a way to bring a diverse group of supporters together.
Instead, it included divisive language and racist insults aimed at some of the very voters Trump has been working to attract.
Causing the most backlash were comments from comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who made explicit jokes about Latinos and turned to Trump recently calling the United States the “garbage can” of the world.
With just about a week until Election Day, the rally was an opportunity for the Trump campaign to connect with Hispanic and Black Americans, voters the Trump campaign is attempting to court in deep-Blue New York.
His campaign instead was forced to try to respond to distance Trump from the comedian the campaign had chosen to speak at his high-profile event.
“This joke does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign,” Trump campaign’s senior adviser Danielle Alvarez wrote in a statement to ABC News about the “island of garbage remark.”
Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt added on Fox News on Monday morning that Hinchcliffe’s joke was in “poor taste.”
Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign immediately slammed Hinchcliffe’s comments, pointing to how Harris would work to support Puerto Rico — a key voting bloc that Harris targeted during a stop in swing state Pennsylvania over the weekend.
“Puerto Ricans deserve better,” she said in a Sunday video post on X.
The backlash to Hinchcliffe’s comments kicked up in Puerto Rico from both sides of the political aisle. Jenniffer Gonzalez, a Republican who is running to be the island’s governor, called the comedian’s comments “despicable, inappropriate and disgusting.” The Republican Party of Puerto Rico also denounced Hinchcliffe’s comments, with party chair Angel Cintrón writing that they were “unfortunate, ignorant, and entirely reprehensible.”
Hinchcliffe responded to criticism from Harris’ running mate, Gov. Tim Walz — who ripped the comedian for the “island of garbage comments.
“These people have no sense of humor. Wild that a vice presidential candidate would take time out of his ‘busy schedule’ to analyze a joke taken out of context to make it seem racist,” Hinchcliffe wrote on social media. “I love Puerto Rico and vacation there. I made fun of everyone…watch the whole set.”
While Puerto Rico does not vote for president in the general election since it is a U.S. territory, the Republican Party of Puerto Rico held a primary in April as part of its presidential nominating process. That primary was won by Trump, who netted the territory’s delegates.
The controversy is not a first for Hinchcliffe, who has a history of making racially charged jokes.
In 2021, he came under fire after calling fellow comedian Peng Dang racist names in a mocking Chinese accent.
It was during a Big Laugh Comedy show in Austin, Texas, where Dang had just introduced Hinchcliffe to the stage after doing a series of jokes related to #StopAsianHate. During the set, Hinchcliffe reportedly further made racist jokes against Chinese people.
The incident led to the cancellation of several of Hinchcliffe’s upcoming shows and reportedly caused him to be removed from his agency, WME.
Other pre-program speakers at the Madison Square Garden rally also made false and harmful remarks about Harris. Businessman Grant Cardone told the crowd that Harris “and her pimp handlers will destroy our country;” Trump’s friend David Rem called her “the devil” and “the anti-Christ.”
Former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson also made racially charged jokes aimed at Harris; radio host Sid Rosenberg used expletives to describe undocumented immigrants and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani also repeated disparaging rhetoric on Palestinians.
Trump’s campaign has still only condemned one comment — those from Hinchcliffe — in a long list of sexist, racist and profane remarks that were made during his Madison Square Garden campaign rally.
In the final weeks of his campaign, Trump has regularly used vulgar, dark and shocking rhetoric to paint a picture of a country being “destroyed” – attacking migrants and his opponent’s intelligence.
