Category: Politics

(WASHINGTON) — As Elon Musk continues to dismantle government agencies, threaten workers with layoffs and gain access to government data, congressional Republicans on Wednesday blocked Democratic efforts to compel him to answer for his actions under oath.

Musk, who has not made any public appearances since the inauguration, has publicly called for cutting down the federal government and through his non-government organization Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has frozen funding for several agencies including USAID the international aid agency.

Designated a special government employee by the White House, Musk claims he has been in talks with President Donald Trump about his tactics.

“I went over it with him in detail, and he agreed that we should shut it down,” Musk said Monday on his effort to curtail USAID.

Rep. Gerald Connolly, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, tore into Musk during a committee hearing on Wednesday as he moved to subpoena the controversial billionaire.

“It’s a puzzling role for many people, certainly on this side of the aisle, and I think for some on yours, who is this unelected billionaire that he can attempt to dismantle federal agencies, fire people, transfer them, offer them early retirement and have sweeping changes to agencies without any congressional review, oversight or concurrence,” he said.

Republicans on the committee pushed back and engaged in a shouting match with Democrats over Musk. When GOP chairman Rep. James Comer put the motion to a vote, it failed along party lines.

Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna of California, who has shown support for DOGE in the past, abstained from voting.

Comer and other Republicans came to Musk and DOGE’s defense contending, without evidence, that the federal government was wasting taxpayer dollars and those agencies needed to be reviewed and scaled back.

“Elon Musk trimmed the fat on X and we have the chance to do the same here,” Comer said about Musk deep cuts at the social media giant.

Musk’s $44 billion purchase of Twitter in 2022 has been seen by some business analysts as an unsuccessful investment as the company’s value has gone down sharply over the years with users and advertisers dropping the platform.

The mutual fund Fidelity marked down its estimate of X’s value by 78.7% as of the end of August, according to a financial disclosure.

Republicans have maintained that Musk is not in charge and answers to Trump.

When asked about Democrats’ concerns and anger over DOGE, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Donald Trump campaigned to make the government more efficient and defended Musk’s involvement in it.

While Musk won’t be taking questions from leaders anytime soon, he has spent a lot of time on his social media platform making his case for the cuts.

On Thursday he reposted a X post that had screenshot from a news article talking about DOGE aides looking at the Medicare payment system.

“Yeah, this is where the big money fraud is happening,” Musk wrote in his post without any further details or evidence to back his claim.

The Medicare system wasn’t the only government agency that was put on notice this week.

The Treasury Department said that officials connected to DOGE have been granted “read-only” access to the sensitive Treasury system that manages trillions of dollars in government payments.

Leavitt told reporters Wednesday that DOGE is not allowed to write new code.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency responsible for forecasting the weather, researching and analyzing climate and weather data and monitoring and tracking extreme weather events like hurricanes, is now being scrutinized by Musk’s team, several sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

DOGE is looking for anything tied to DEI and that they removed anything DEI-related from bulletin boards, including posters and signs, the sources said. They also checked bathroom signs to ensure they complied with Trump’s executive orders.

A former NOAA employee told ABC News that he is concerned that representatives from DOGE will employ what he called the Musk’s strategy of breaking things now and fixing them later. He said he’s worried that NOAA’s irreplaceable climate and weather data could be damaged or lost and that DOGE may be following the Project 2025 playbook.

Trump has distanced himself from the plan. However, his nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, was one of the authors.

Project 2025 calls for breaking up NOAA and privatizing forecast operations. In the document, the authors wrote that NOAA is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity.

As these moves take place, questions have been raised by leaders, critics and others about by how much and how exactly its operating.

Musk initially wanted an office in the West Wing but told people he thought it was too small, multiple people familiar with his comments told ABC News. Instead, he took an office inside the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the sources said.

Musk moved beds into both the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the United States Office of Personnel Management, according to sources. The move is intended to allow both Musk and his staff to sleep there if working late, the sources said.

It follows a familiar trend for tech companies in Silicon Valley.

Musk’s team is staffed largely by engineers and young people with little experience in government policy. At least one as young as 19 years old, according to sources.

Trump was asked Tuesday about Musk’s team including the younger members and their access to government data and facilities and said he thought it was a good move.

Democratic leadership on the Hill has repeatedly downplayed the power Musk claims for DOGE.

“It has no authority to make spending decisions, to shut down programs or ignore federal law. This is not debatable. This is an indisputable fact. No authority for spending decisions to shut down programs or ignore federal law,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said Tuesday.

ABC News’ Rachel Scott, Matthew Glasser, Will Steakin, Katherine Faulders and Max Zahn contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Democrats are outraged over President Donald Trump’s proposal to “take over” and rebuild Gaza — calling the plan everything from “horrifying” to “ethnic cleansing,” while Republicans were supportive, but admitted they were short on details.

“This is an insane proposal, and there’s been a huge backlash already, because the president of the United States was saying that he would use U.S. military force, if necessary, to forcibly remove 2 million Palestinians from Gaza — that’s ethnic cleansing by another name — so that it could be redeveloped,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., told CNN on Wednesday morning, adding that it could be “dangerous” for both the U.S. and the Middle East.

Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., said that Trump is “completely ignoring the sovereignty and the self determination of the Palestinian people who have lived in this place for generations and he’s got his eye on some real estate deal because he thinks the coastline of Gaza is going to be great for some new hotel.” She told CNN that the plan is “horrifying” and “ridiculous,” shortly after Trump announced it Tuesday night during a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In addition to announcing his desire to “take over” Gaza, Trump pushed for Palestinians to leave Gaza and relocate, a suggestion that was roundly rejected by neighbors in the region and from U.S. allies.

Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green announced on Wednesday that he intends to file articles of impeachment against Trump over his proposal.

Some Democrats also asserted that Trump’s comments were meant to distract from Elon Musk being given access to the Treasury Department’s federal payment system and disrupting other government agencies.

“I have news for you — we aren’t taking over Gaza. But the media and the chattering class will focus on it for a few days and Trump will have succeeded in distracting everyone from the real story — the billionaires seizing government to steal from regular people,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said on X. He also later referred to the plan as a “bad, sick joke.”

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers were quick to praise Trump’s proposal while also admitting that they weren’t certain of the specifics.

House Speaker Mike Johnson came to Trump’s defense Wednesday morning, calling the president’s surprise announcement “a bold move” while acknowledging he’s waiting on “further details on what exactly that looks like.”

“It’s a bold move, certainly far bolder than what’s been done before, but I think we’ve got to stand unequivocally in an unwavering manner…with Israel, our closest ally and friend in the Middle East,” he said during a press conference at the Capitol.

Earlier Wednesday, Johnson told reporters, “I think this is a good development” and “I think it’s one that we’ll applaud.”

Other Republicans went even farther.

“The status quo hasn’t worked,” Rep. Brian Mast, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee told ABC News. “Two-state solution is the idea of making a state of an entity that would immediately have to be labeled a state sponsor of terror. And so that’s not the solution at all.”

When asked if this means troops would be deployed to the region, he said, “that’s not a guarantee. That’s something that is on the table.”

Other lawmakers were also unclear on whether Trump had deploying troops in mind.

“As far as I know, it’s not troops,” Rep. Byron Donald, a close Trump ally, said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune suggested that the president “wants to bring a more peaceful, secure Middle East, and he’s put some ideas out there.”

He later doubled down on that sentiment, saying, “Look, there are a lot of ideas that are coming out to try to address what is clearly a crisis in that region.”

Lisa McClain, R-Mich., stopped short of endorsing Trump’s plan but told reporters that “it is going to take unconventional wisdom to get us out of this mess that we’re in” and said the president is “throwing everything in the kitchen sink out there.”

-ABC News’ Oren Oppenheim and Emily Chang contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Democratic lawmakers continue to protest tech billionaire Elon Musk’s sweeping influence over government decisions and material, with protests, proposed legislation and other attempts to obstruct President Donald Trump’s agenda and the efforts of his close ally to cut what the Trump administration considers wasteful spending.

Dozens of lawmakers appeared Tuesday at a “Nobody Elected Elon” rally outside the Treasury Department, each delivering fiery attacks directed toward Trump and Musk. They described Musk’s action as a “heist,” a “takeover” and an “abuse of power.”

Rep. Ayanna Pressley went as far as calling Musk a “Nazi nepo baby.”

Democrats have pushed back against Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts, mounting growing protests, introducing legislation and threatening to try to derail his agenda by holding up confirmation of his appointees.

Rep. Maxine Waters said, “We have got to tell Elon Musk, ‘Nobody elected your ass. Nobody told you you could get all of our private information. Nobody told you you could be in charge of the payments of this country.’”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren added, “Not one Democrat in America voted for Elon Musk, not one not one Republican in America voted for Elon Musk, not one independent in America voted for Elon Musk, not one libertarian in America voted for Elon Musk, dammit, not one vegetarian in America voted for Elon Musk, and yet, Elon Musk is seizing the power that belongs to the American people.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal cautioned his Republican colleagues that Musk’s actions could have harmful consequences for their constituents as well.

Sen. Chris Murphy struck a similar tone as his Democratic colleagues, threatening to stall Trump’s nominees from being confirmed should Musk continue his overreach.

“You will remember this is the moment that made a difference for America, because the message here is, we have to reach beyond this crowd, reach beyond this city. Reach beyond Democrats, to Republicans and say you’re losing your country too,” Murphy said.

Pressley reached out to Republicans, too.

“I want to say to our Republican colleagues, pay attention. We’re here today in the hopes that you will see the light. But if you do not see the light, we will bring the fire. Resist,” she said Rep. Pressley.

During multiple times, there were chants of “Lock him up!” from the crowd, which appeared to be directed at Trump and Musk.

Murphy also made a dig at the young staffers reportedly working for DOGE.

“When we open up the Senate every single morning, we don’t pledge allegiance to the billionaires. We don’t. We don’t pledge allegiance to Elon Musk. We don’t pledge allegiance to the creepy 22 year olds working for Elon Musk. We pledge allegiance to the United States of America,” he said to cheers.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said they’re pushing joint legislation that would block ‘unlawful meddling’ in the Treasury Department’s payment systems — responding to news on Monday that Treasury gave Musk and representatives of DOGE access to its vast federal payment system.

At a news conference at the Capitol, the Democratic leaders unveiled the bill as the “Stop the Steal” Act, a play off of Trump’s rallying cry as he sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The legislation would deny special government employees and anyone with conflicts of interest or a lack of appropriate clearance any access to the Treasury payment system. It also would include personal tax information into existing privacy protections, according to Schumer.

The White House said Monday that Musk received status as a special government employee, meaning he’s a short-term federal worker who works under looser ethics rules.

Jeffries said the legislation will be introduced “in short order” to prevent “unlawful access with respect to the Department of Treasury’s payment system connected to people who are trying to steal personal, sensitive and confidential information related to Social Security recipients, Medicare recipients, taxpayers, businesses, not-for-profits, veterans and everyday Americans.”

“It is unacceptable, unconscionable and unAmerican,” he said.

Given the Republican majority in both chambers of Congress, it is unlikely the legislation will advance. However, Schumer and Jeffries outlined other avenues Democrats could take. Schumer threatened to block funding legislation until there are changes and added that Democrats would also hold shadow hearings with whistleblowers.

Though the leaders repeatedly mentioned DOGE, they stayed away from directly saying Elon Musk’s name until asked by reporters.

Jeffries avoided saying the legislation was solely focused on Musk but rather centered around the “whole process” of the recent Treasury moves, when asked how concerned he was specifically about the Tesla founder.

“We’re concerned that Musk is in charge of DOGE, but we’re concerned about the how the whole process works, and ultimately the buck falls with Donald Trump, the president,” Jeffries said. “But we are concerned that a small number of people are concerned with the whole process, including Musk and including the others,” Jeffries said.

The Democrats repeatedly downplayed DOGE’s power.

“It has no authority to make spending decisions, to shut down programs or ignore federal law. This is not debatable. This is an indisputable fact: No authority for spending decisions to shut down programs or ignore federal law,” Schumer warned.

Schumer said that “all 47 Democrats” in the Senate would oppose the confirmation of Office of Management and Budget nominee Russell Vought in light of the federal funding freezes announced last week.

“We are united in our agreement that Russell Vought is a dangerous and destructive choice to lead the Office of Management and Budget, and we saw a precursor to his leadership last week during the dangerous federal funding fees that crippled nearly crippled critical duties of the federal government and its operations,” Schumer said.

“Senate Democrats will unanimously oppose him and do everything we can to prevent him from needing OMB,” he added.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge in Maryland is set to consider whether President Donald Trump will be able to redefine the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman has scheduled a 10 a.m. ET hearing on Wednesday to consider a request by five pregnant undocumented women to issue a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s Day-1 executive order on birthright citizenship.

The women and the two nonprofits filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the executive order — which challenged the long-settled interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause — violated the constitution and multiple federal laws.

“If allowed to go into effect, the Executive Order would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country, including the children of Individual Plaintiffs and Members,” the lawsuit said.

Lawyers for the Department of Justice have claimed that Trump’s executive order attempts to resolve “prior misimpressions” of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that birthright citizenship creates a “perverse incentive for illegal immigration.” If permitted, Trump’s executive order would preclude U.S. citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants or immigrants whose presence in the United States is lawful but temporary.

“Text, history, and precedent support what common sense compels: the Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to, inter alia: the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws,” DOJ lawyers argued.

The executive order has already been put on hold by a federal judge in Seattle, who last month criticized the Department of Justice for attempting to defend what he called 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,” said U.S. District Judge John Coughenour. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”

Because Judge Coughenour’s order only blocked the executive order temporarily, Judge Boardman will consider a longer-lasting preliminary injunction of the executive order.

“The hearing that’s coming up is a proceeding that essentially puts a longer pause,” explained Loyola Marymount University professor Justin Levitt. “It’s an order saying, ‘Don’t implement this,’ because the plaintiffs have shown a likelihood that they’ll succeed when we finally get to a final resolution, but many substantive legal claims are effectively decided on preliminary injunctions.”

With Trump vowing to appeal a ruling that finds his executive order unconstitutional, a preliminary injunction — if granted after Wednesday’s hearing — could be his first opportunity to appeal to a higher court.

Members of the Trump administration spent months crafting this executive order with the understanding that it would inevitably be challenged and potentially blocked by lower courts, according to sources familiar with their planning.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Senate Republicans defended the Trump administration’s sweeping revamp of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) led by Elon Musk. But some lawmakers downplayed the billionaire’s power over the president.

“In terms of any decisions made, those are made by the president or the secretary,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told ABC News on Tuesday. “If Musk wants to make recommendations, wants to go and say, you know, ‘We ought to cancel this, we ought to cancel that,’ that’s fine.”

Hawley dismissed Musk’s framing that he has more authority, calling it “a form of self-promotion” and saying the efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, are more of an audit.

Other lawmakers defended the administration’s decision to gut a congressionally appropriated agency. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said it was a long time coming.

“This idea that people are concerned in these agencies, there’s a lot of great people that work there, but we’ve gone astray, I think a lot of this spending across the world, the American people are tired of it,” he said.

Elon Musk called the USAID “hopeless,” and said he was “in the process” of “shutting [it] down” — which he said President Donald Trump supports.

“We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” Musk wrote on X.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told ABC News’ Rachel Scott on Tuesday, “My message to my Democratic friends and to the tofu-eating ‘wokerati’ at USAID is, ‘I hear your question, but you need to call somebody who cares.”

A week ago, there were lingering questions on Capitol Hill about whether a handful of Republicans would tank the president’s most controversial nominees or if any Republicans would raise concerns about the sweeping changes across federal agencies, but these questions have since quieted.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he doesn’t have any concerns about Musk’s role in the federal government, saying that Musk reminds him of a “strategist.”

“He is throwing out big ideas. And if anybody thinks that all of these big ideas are going to be implemented to conclusion, they don’t understand the process of disruption,” Tillis said. “Everybody is acting like Congress doesn’t exist anymore. Many of the things he’s thinking about will require Congressional approval to actually structurally change them.”

But when asked why the changes wouldn’t then go through Congress, Tillis called that the “old way of doing things.”

“We’ve got oversight. If it goes too far, I’ll be the first person to step up — he went too far.”

Democrats pounced, continuing to sound the alarm and arguing that it’s only a matter of time until congressional Republicans and Musk are at loggerheads.

“There’s going to be a contest here of who’s really in charge,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said. “Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, the idea that you can go back to last year’s appropriations and just shut it down cold, without any recourse, is wrong.”

“Elon Musk’s role is not only unprecedented, it is unconscionable for him to be exercising the kind of influence and power that he is with his conflicts of interest and his financial benefits flowing to him from the kind of destructive impact,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said. “It’s not disruptive, it is destructive.”

In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor Monday evening, Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, called DOGE’s actions “flatly illegal” and raised questions about whether the U.S. truly believes in the rule of law.

“I’ve got agencies I don’t like … agencies that I think are spending too much money or too little money. Do you know what I do about that? I introduce a bill to change that because I believe in the American system of government,” Schatz said.

While speaking on the floor, Schatz got passionate, raising his voice and pounding his fist on the lectern as he expressed frustration about the situation unfolding. He also suggested that the move to unilaterally act without notifying Congress, in violation of congressional appropriation, was unAmerican.

Schatz questioned why assessments of efficacy could not be made while aid work continues.

“People are dying now,” he emphasized, arguing that changes could be made “while you keep the agency open.”

“What they did is they stormed into the offices of a federal building, sent everybody home, broke into the secure conference facilities, broke into the SCIFs, locked people out of their emails. Does that sound like the United States of America” Schatz added, painting a picture of what occurred at the USAID offices over the weekend. “It really honestly does not sound like the United States of America to me. These people were not elected.”

Schatz’s speech came after the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jim Risch, blocked an effort by Coons that asserted the belief that USAID is “essential for advancing the national security interests of the United States.”

“I’m supportive of the Trump administration’s efforts to reform and restructure the agency in a way that better serves United States national security interests,” Risch said.

In a fiery press conference Monday, Senate Democrats said they were “pulling the fire alarm” to warn about the dangers posed by DOGE and Elon Musk’s access to the Treasury’s payments system.

“Before our very eyes, an unelected shadow government is conducting a hostile takeover of the federal government,” Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Transgender young adults and families with transgender youth filed a legal challenge Tuesday against an executive order from the Trump administration that restricts gender-affirming care for transgender people under 19.

“When the Tennessee Legislature passed a law that banned gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, I knew we had to leave the state so that my daughter could continue receiving the care she needs,” said Kristen Chapman, the mother of 17-year-old plaintiff Willow, in a statement.

The Virginia resident continued: “We moved to Virginia in the summer of 2023, but struggled to find a provider that would accept our Medicaid insurance. As paying for her care out-of-pocket became prohibitively expensive, I tried for months to get an appointment at VCU, and I finally got an appointment for January 29, 2025. The day before our appointment, President Trump signed the executive order at issue in this case. The next day, just a few hours before our appointment, VCU told us they would not be able to provide Willow with care. I thought Virginia would be a safe place for me and my daughter. Instead, I am heartbroken, tired, and scared.”

Trump’s order moves to withhold federal funding to medical institutions that provide such care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapies, and surgeries — calling on the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to “take all appropriate actions to end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.” The executive order does not appear to restrict these procedures for non-transgender people under 19.

Trump’s executive order states that “it is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

The lawsuit was filed by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, PFLAG national, the ACLU of Maryland, and the law firms Hogan Lovells and Jenner & Block on behalf of two transgender young adults and five transgender adolescents.

Major national medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and more than 20 others argue that gender-affirming care is safe, effective, beneficial, and medically necessary.

The complaint notes that “for many transgender adolescents, the onset of puberty leading to physical changes in their bodies that are incongruent with their gender identities can cause extreme distress.”

It continued, “Puberty-delaying medication allows transgender adolescents to pause these changes, thereby minimizing and potentially preventing the heightened gender dysphoria caused by the development of secondary sex characteristics incongruent with their gender identity.”

The executive order is the latest action from Trump that impacts the transgender community — which is estimated to make up less than 1% of the population over the age of 13. Trump also recently signed executive orders restricting transgender participation in the military, ending federal legal recognition of transgender people, and restricting gender marker changes on federal documents.

The Supreme Court is currently considering the landmark U.S. v. Skrmetti case, which challenges Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming puberty blockers and hormone therapy on the grounds that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by discriminating based on sex.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to vote on former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for Director of National Intelligence in a closed-door session Tuesday afternoon. The vote follows Gabbard’s at-times contentious confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill on Thursday, where she was grilled over her views on government secrets leaker Edward Snowden and her refusal to label him a traitor.

Gabbard, a former Democratic Hawaii Congresswoman turned Republican, picked up three key Republican votes on Monday from Sens. Susan Collins, James Lankford and Todd Young. They had previously been critical of her past statements on Snowden and her opposition to government surveillance programs. Gabbard can only afford to lose one Republican vote on the committee.

During Thursday’s hearing, lawmakers from both parties repeatedly pressed Gabbard to disavow her past support of Snowden, a former intelligence contractor who fled the country with more than 1 million classified records. Gabbard previously described Snowden as a “brave” whistleblower who exposed civil liberties violations by the intelligence community. While in Congress, she introduced legislation stating that “Snowden’s disclosure of this program to journalists was in the public interest, and the Federal Government should drop all charges.”

While Gabbard repeatedly stated that Snowden “broke the law,” she did not back away from her previous statements and refused to call him a “traitor” despite being asked several times by senators from both parties.

In an op-ed in Newsweek over the weekend, Gabbard wrote that she explained in the closed session in her confirmation hearing why she refused to call him that.

“Treason is a capital offense, punishable by death, yet politicians like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former US Senator Mitt Romney have slandered me, Donald Trump Jr. and others with baseless accusations of treason. It is essential to focus on the facts, not the label. Snowden should have raised his concerns about illegal surveillance through authorized channels, such as the Inspector General or the Intelligence Committee, instead of leaking to the media.”

Gabbard also presented a four-point plan to prevent future Snowden-like leaks, which includes oversight to ensure there are no illegal intelligence collection programs, minimizing access to sensitive intelligence, informing government workers about legal options for whistleblowers, and creating a hotline for whistleblowers to contact Gabbard directly.

Several senators questioned Gabbard’s past opposition to government surveillance programs under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the U.S. government to collect electronic communications of non-Americans outside the country without a warrant. Gabbard, who voted against the provision as a member of Congress, said changes made to the program since she left office were enough to earn her support.

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. Her nomination is expected to be voted on during a closed-door confirmation session on Tuesday.

A source with knowledge of the proceedings told ABC News that newly confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe, former NSA adviser Robert O’Brien and former Sen. Richard Burr, a former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, have been making calls to senators on Gabbard’s behalf. Gabbard has also talked to senators since her hearing, a source said.

Over the weekend, Young faced pressure from Gabbard and Trump allies, but on Tuesday, Young, who was believed to be the final key vote needed for Gabbard’s nomination to move from the committee to the Senate floor, announced he would support her.

“I have done what the Framers envisioned for senators to do: use the consultative process to seek firm commitments, in this case commitments that will advance our national security, which is my top priority as a former Marine Corps intelligence officer,” Young posted. “Having now secured these commitments, I will support Tulsi’s nomination and look forward to working with her to protect our national security.”

In a now-deleted post on X ahead over the weekend, Elon Musk said Young was a “deep state puppet.” However, hours later, Musk deleted the post and said, “Just had an excellent conversation with @SenToddYoung. I stand corrected. Senator Young will be a great ally in restoring power to the people from the vast, unelected bureaucracy.”

Meghan McCain, a close ally of Gabbard, also voiced her support over the weekend, posting, “Any Senator who votes against @TulsiGabbard for DNI isn’t just going to have a problem with MAGA and Trump – I will make it my personal mission to help campaign and fundraise against you in your next election. And my people are probably a lot like their people,” she added.

Young, who did not endorse Trump in his presidential campaign, had a heated exchange with Gabbard during her hearing.

“Did [Snowden] betray the trust of the American people?” Young asked.

“Edward Snowden broke the law,” Gabbard responded, “and he released this information in a way that he should not have.”

ABC News’ Lucien Bruggeman and Allison Pecorin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday voted to advance Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s controversial nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human Services under President Donald Trump.

The panel voted along party lines, 14-13.

It was a high-stakes vote for Kennedy, as with the committee’s makeup it would have taken just one Republican to oppose him for his nomination to be potentially sunk.

All eyes were on Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican and longtime physician who, during last week’s hearings, expressed deep concerns about the impact of Kennedy’s past comments casting doubt on vaccines, including saying on a 2023 podcast that “no vaccine is safe and effective.

Cassidy told Kennedy he was “struggling” with his nomination as those proceedings came to a close. The two spoke more over the weekend, according to one person familiar with the discussion, though it’s unclear what was said. Cassidy avoided reporter questions ahead of the vote on that conversation and on whether he’d support Kennedy.

Cassidy voted on Tuesday to move forward with Kennedy’s nomination.

“I’ve had very intense conversations with Bobby and the White House over the weekend and even this morning,” Cassidy said in a statement posted to X earlier Tuesday, explaining his vote. “I want to thank VP JD specifically for his honest counsel. With the serious commitments I’ve received from the administration and the opportunity to make progress on the issues we agree on like healthy foods and a pro-American agenda, I will vote yes.”

President Trump said on Monday he’s called senators who have concerns about Kennedy. Vice President JD Vance had also been quietly lobbying senators to line up behind Kennedy, ABC News previously reported.

Kennedy’s nomination will next head to the floor for consideration before the full Senate. A final vote could occur this week or early next week.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that they expect “all Senate Republicans to stand tough and strong” and vote to confirm Kennedy to Trump’s Cabinet.

“Make America Healthy Again, that is a very popular slogan and it’s a very popular movement in this country. And there’s tens of millions of Americans who are hopeful that RFK Junior will be the next HHS secretary and we expect all Senate Republicans to stay on tough and strong and vote for him,” Leavitt said as she gaggled with reporters on Tuesday.

Questions have continued to swirl around Kennedy’s views on vaccines. He said several times during the hearings last Wednesday and Thursday that he supports vaccines and is not “anti-vaccine” but “pro-safety.”

However, Kennedy has openly questioned the widespread administration of both measles and polio vaccines, and has falsely linked the former vaccine to autism, despite several high-quality studies finding no such link.

He also pointed to a flawed paper to suggest there is evidence to claim that vaccines cause autism. Cassidy, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said he saw problems with the paper’s methodology upon first look.

Kennedy also cast doubt on the lifesaving benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines, saying he doesn’t think that “anybody” can say the vaccines saved millions of lives.

A 2022 study from the Yale School of Public Health and University of Maryland Medical School estimated the vaccine saved 3 million lives and prevented 18 million hospitalizations.

Senators were also befuddled by comments Kennedy made in the past. Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado read aloud alleged past comments made by Kennedy, including unfounded claims about transgender children.

Kennedy denied making such comments despite repeated an unfounded conspiracy theory during an episode of his podcast in 2022, suggesting endocrine disruptors, including phthalates — which make chemicals more durable — and pesticides, can influence sexual orientation or gender identity.

ABC News’ Anne Flaherty and Will McDuffie contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — New York Attorney General Letitia James sent a letter to health care providers, calling on medical institutions to continue providing gender-affirming care amid reports, according the attorney general’s office, that several providers in the state had stopped providing treatments following a President Donald Trump executive order.

James reminded providers in a Monday letter “to comply with New York law … [providers] must continue to provide health care services, including gender affirming care, to transgender or gender nonconforming individuals.”

They must provide care regardless “of the availability of federal funding,” James told providers, noting that New York State laws prohibit discrimination, which includes “withholding the availability of services from transgender individuals based on their gender identity or their diagnosis of gender dysphoria, while offering such services to cisgender individuals.”

In a Jan. 28 executive order, Trump threatened to stop providing federal funding and grants to medical institutions that provided gender-affirming care for people under the age of 19.

Trump’s executive order does not restrict puberty blockers, hormone therapies, or surgeries for cisgender patients under the age of 19.

On Jan. 31, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to stop Trump’s efforts to freeze federal funding, saying that the freeze is likely a violation of the Constitution.

James’ office told providers in her letter that the temporary restraining order applied to both current and future grants of federal assistance and that funding cannot be frozen or withdrawn as it applies to providing gender affirming care to minors.

The executive order against gender-affirming care is the latest action from Trump that impacts the transgender community, which is estimated to make up less than 1% of the U.S. population over the age of 13.

Trump also recently signed executive orders restricting transgender participation in the military, ending federal legal recognition of transgender people, and restricting gender marker changes on federal documents.

James was one of 22 state attorneys general behind the lawsuit aiming to halt the implementation of the Trump administration’s policies freezing federal agency grants and financial assistance.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Dozens of Department of Education employees received letters as business hours closed Friday placing them on administrative leave, according to a copy of one letter obtained by ABC News.

While no specific reason was given, some employees told ABC News they believe the only common thread among them is that they attended a voluntary training called the “Diversity Change-Agent Training Program.”

The letter states that the administrative leave notice is not for disciplinary purposes. Rather, it’s being issued under President Donald Trump’s executive order on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and “further guidance” from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, according to the letter.

Per the letter, employees will receive full pay and benefits through the end of the administrative leave. They are not required to do work-related tasks during this time, nor are they required to come into the office. Employees who were placed on leave also had their government email access suspended as they received the letters. There’s no set time for the leave period, according to the letter.

The letters have caused a frenzy throughout the department, as some employees had been locked out of their accounts and had to check their private email addresses for the notice, according to Sheria Smith, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 252.

Smith told ABC News more than 50 employees in “extremely diverse roles” within the department received the email notices to their government email addresses or their private email accounts after regular business hours over the weekend.

ABC News spoke with three Department of Education employees who received the letters and described their leave as “paid administrative hell” since Friday evening.

“It’s very, very, unsettling,” one department employee of over 20 years, who works in Washington, D.C., told ABC News. “I don’t get it. What’s my crime? What have I done?”

Smith said the positions of Department of Education employees placed on leave run the gamut, from senior civil rights attorneys to attorneys for borrower defense to press specialists. She said she feared more letters would be sent in the coming days.

An attorney who works for the department in Washington, D.C., said they were put on leave from their “dream job.” The employee has two children and received the notice after putting them to bed on Friday night, they said. The person said Friday was tough and the news was shocking to receive, but now they’re feeling “different levels” of sadness.

“My mood felt a little bit different just waking up knowing that I wasn’t going to be working,” the employee told ABC News.

“But I just feel like there’s a lot of information that I’m trying to process and, with small kids, it’s like you’re trying to balance a lot,” the employee added.

The letters came as the Trump administration worked to scrub the federal government’s DEI policies and programs. The president issued an executive order during his first week in office calling on agencies to “combat” private-sector DEI programs.

Trump’s rhetoric — including threatening for months to shutter the Department of Education — has created fear throughout the department, according to Smith.

“People took these jobs because they care about the mission,” Smith told ABC News. “And so it absolutely impacts us. You know, the very thing that brought us to these jobs we’re unable to do.”

The department employee with two small children has worked for the department for just over four years and comes from a family of educators. The employee said education is the “great equalizer,” and the Department of Education benefits everyone.

“I believe in the department,” the department attorney said, adding: “I always wanted to work here.”

In a statement to ABC News, Department of Education Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications Madi Biedermann said the president was elected to enact “unprecedented reform” that is merit-based and efficient at serving the interests of the American people.

“We are evaluating staffing in line with the commitment to prioritizing meaningful learning ahead of divisive ideology in schools and putting student outcomes above special interests,” Biedermann wrote.

ABC News has reached out to the White House for comment.

Meanwhile, the three department employees who spoke to ABC News said they’re completely stumped on why they were issued administrative leave notices. The department employee with decades of experience in Washington also said it’s puzzling, in part, because during Trump’s first term, managers were evaluated on upholding DEI standards via a department performance rating system.

“We were expected to do DEI,” the employee said. “That’s what Trump and [then-Education Secretary] Betsy DeVos wanted us to do. They wanted to do that. They put it in our [performance] plans. We did not put that in our plans. And not only that, it is in every manager’s plan in the department, not just people that are on administrative leave.”

“Every single person in the Department of Education that’s a supervisor or a manager right now has [DEI] in their performance plan — that is programmed in by the department,” the employee added.

The administrative leave notices may have been tied to a two-day “Diversity Change-Agent Training Program,” a facilitator-led training, according to training document slides obtained by ABC News. The training took place over two days dating as far back as March 2019, under DeVos and during Trump’s first term, according to a February 2019 email obtained by ABC News with the subject “Diversity Change Agent Course.”

The training program aimed to create specific action plans to “drive diversity and inclusion” and increase creativity and innovation. The program also challenged employees to achieve greater results by championing the diversity of its workforce while creating and sustaining an inclusive environment, according to the training document slides.

Another department employee, who took the 2019 training and works remotely out of the New York offices, called the notice “bizarre,” especially since the 2019 training occurred during the president’s first term.

“The whole thing is bizarre,” the department employee told ABC News. “Betsy DeVos — and [Trump’s] prior administration — was a decent champion of these programs, and they didn’t come with any warning to me to say, ‘Hey, taking this training might lead to an adverse personnel action one day,’ right? So it’s just strange how they can retroactively apply something.”

The department employees on leave who spoke to ABC News said they have no official DEI responsibilities in their roles. All three department employees who spoke with ABC News also confirmed the only DEI-like program that would potentially be barred under Trump’s executive order would be the change-agent training sessions.

However, to their knowledge, the three employees on leave said there’s no official list or way of matching the employees on administrative leave with the training programs. Even though they’re convinced these trainings link them to the Trump administration’s definition of DEI, the employees haven’t confirmed why they’re on leave, according to the ones who spoke to ABC News.

The employee who works out of New York has more than a dozen years of experience in administering federal programs. Multiple other employees on administrative leave that this employee spoke to over the weekend said they also took the 2019 training, according to the employee.

“That’s the only thing we can think of that any of us did,” the employee said.

After reaching out to other colleagues with the same titles, the employee in New York said, they “pieced it together.” This employee said they took at least three training programs like the diversity change-agent training program since the initial training.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.