Exclusive: Gabbard to meet with US allies in Munich on first trip as DNI
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — During her first full day as director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard will travel to Germany for the Munich Security Conference, where she will hold 30 bilateral meetings with counterparts, including key U.S. allies Great Britain, France, Australia, and Germany, Alexa Henning, deputy DNI for strategy and communications told ABC News.
Gabbard, who was to be sworn into office Wednesday afternoon shortly after the Senate voted to confirm her, is expected to deliver remarks at a luncheon during the conference. She will be joined by Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who are also attending.
During her confirmation hearing in January, Gabbard previewed her priorities as head of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), stating that President Donald Trump’s reelection was aimed at breaking the cycle of failure within the intelligence community, ending “the weaponization/politicization of the IC and begin to restore trust in those who have been charged with the critical task of securing our nation.”
To assess the global threat environment, Gabbard will identify “where gaps in our intelligence exist, integrate intelligence elements, increase information-sharing, and ensure unbiased, apolitical, objective collection and analysis to support the president and policymakers’ decision-making,” according to a list of priorities obtained by ABC News.
Her priorities also emphasize the need to end polarization of the intelligence community, stating that her goal is to “ensure clear mission focus to the IC on its core mission of unbiased, apolitical collection and analysis of intelligence to secure our nation.”
The DNI also stresses that rebuilding “trust through transparency and accountability,” is a national security imperative, according to the document.
Like many government agencies in the second Trump administration, Gabbard’s focus is on reforming ODNI, which was created in response to intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. She aims to “assess and address efficiency, redundancy, and effectiveness across ODNI to ensure focus of personnel and resources is focused on our core mission of national security,” according to the document.
During the confirmation process, the former Hawaii congresswoman met with more than half of the Senate over two months. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed frustration with recent intelligence failures, according to sources with knowledge of proceedings. Gabbard continued meeting with senators on Capitol Hill up until the eve of her nomination.
Gabbard was grilled by lawmakers from both sides of the aisle about her reversal on a key surveillance tool, Section 702 of the FISA, and her refusal to label former National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden a traitor during contentious confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill last month.
The Senate confirmed her nomination, 52-48, on Wednesday. Gabbard, a former Democrat turned Republican, received no Democratic votes. The only Republican to vote against her was former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said, “The nation should not have to worry that the intelligence assessments the President receives are tainted by a Director of National Intelligence with a history of alarming lapses in judgment.”
Another key “no” vote came from independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose presidential campaign Gabbard endorsed in 2016 after stepping down as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee.
According to the document obtained by ABC News, Gabbard plans to work with lawmakers to ensure responsiveness to their requests for intelligence. Issues of concern include the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack in Israel; the 2024 Syrian rebel takeover; failures to identify the source of the COVID-19 outbreak, Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs), also known as “Havana Syndrome,” Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) — objects in air, sea or space that defy scientific explanation — drones and more.
Gabbard, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, has served 22 years in the Army National Guard and Reserve, including deployments to Iraq, Kuwait, and Djibouti. She is the first female DNI to have served in the military and plans to continue to serve in the Reserve, which ODNI regulations permit.
She plans to use her experience in the military and in Congress to bring “fresh eyes” as she assumes the role of America’s top intelligence official, according to the document.
(WASHINGTON) — Amid a flurry of executive actions President Trump is taking to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government, the Trump administration is also turning its attention to private companies and institutions.
President Trump signed an executive order the day after he was sworn in to his second term that not only rescinded DEI policies in the federal government, but also “[encourages] the private sector to end” what the order calls “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences,” claiming in part that DEI policies “violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws.”
“Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex,” the order said.
Several legal experts who advise companies and institutions regarding their DEI policies told ABC News that while the Trump administration doesn’t have the legal authority to mandate that private businesses abandon their DEI policies, the executive order’s language uses the threat of potential legal action against certain companies with DEI policies to ostensibly force them to do so.
‘It’s a powerful threat’
Part of Trump’s Jan. 21 executive order directs the attorney general, “within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of [the Office of Management and Budget],” the latter of which oversees the performance of all federal agencies, to “submit a report … containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.”
The order instructs the federal agencies to “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars,” as well as “litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest.”
Those agencies are further directed to identify “key sectors of concern” and “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners” within each agency’s jurisdiction, and to develop “a plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles.”
The possibility of a legal battle with the federal government over DEI is already causing concern for many private businesses, experts told ABC News.
“It’s a powerful threat that companies are responding to it by taking another very close look at their programs to make sure that they are comfortable with them,” said labor attorney Jason Schwartz, a partner and co-chair of the Labor and Employment Practice at Gibson Dunn in Washington, D.C., and who leads the firm’s DEI task force.
“Nobody wants to be on that Donald Trump DEI blacklist,” Kenji Yoshino, a professor of constitutional law at NYU and the director of NYU’s Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging, and who also advises Fortune 500 companies on DEI matters, told ABC News. “I worry that there’s a very smart move and savvy move on the part of the executive branch to cast a fear through this kind of gesture of ‘we are going to single you out,’ or targeting so that a lot of companies are going to withdraw or pull back more than they needed to pull back, strictly legally.”
“[Companies] just don’t want to be one of those nine,” Yoshino added, referring to the number of the executive order’s “potential civil compliance investigations.”
“Until those nine are announced, it’s going to cause others to be risk-averse,” said Yoshino. “So there’s a kind of, you know, preemptive compliance, you know, or obedience going on.”
How companies are responding
Schwartz told ABC News that since Trump signed his executive order, companies have been scrambling to seek legal counsel regarding their DEI policies and whether they need to be revised.
“The phone is literally ringing off the hook,” he said, referring to the calls his firm is receiving. “Companies are very concerned. They want to make sure, obviously, that they stay on the right side of the law.”
Yoshino said that the phones at NYU’s Center for DEI likewise have been “ringing off the hook” with calls from companies seeking advice on how to proceed with their DEI initiatives. For now, he advises that concerned parties take a measured approach.
“The reflexive response is often to be like, ‘Oh, if we shut it down, we will minimize risk,’ and we regard that to be short sighted, both because there are smart ways to tweak these programs to lower the risk, or even lower to zero, eliminate the risk while still getting the same results,” Yoshino told ABC News.
“And alternatively, if you eliminate all your DEI policies, you’re then going to get sued from the other side,” he cautioned, noting that marginalized groups could argue that rolling back DEI “leads to a less inclusive, more discriminatory environment.”
Several large corporations – including Amazon, Meta, McDonalds, Walmart and Ford – announced before Trump was sworn in for his second term that they were ending, scaling back or otherwise reevaluating some of their DEI-related programs or initiatives.
However, according to Yoshino, whose office has been tracking the impact of Trump’s actions on DEI, even some companies who are stepping away from some DEI initiatives are retaining some policies or programs committed to inclusion, and that the majority of companies on the Fortune 500 list “still have pro-DEI statements on their websites.”
Some companies also are publicly standing by their DEI commitments, with leaders at Goldman Sachs, Costco and JPMorgan Chase & Co recently speaking out in support of their diversity programs amid pressure from anti-DEI activist shareholders to roll back their policies.
“I do think that it’s really important not to overreact,” Yoshino told ABC News.
What comes next?
While it’s unclear what might be “litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest” against private companies, as the executive order states, as well as what might be the outcome of any such actions, Yoshino and Schwartz both noted that anti-DEI litigation efforts in the U.S. have been escalating since the Supreme Court’s June 2023 landmark ruling that effectively ended affirmative action in higher education.
Since the Supreme Court decision, conservative legal advocacy groups have been ramping up litigation against private companies over their DEI initiatives, Schwartz said, noting that with Trump’s executive order, those groups have now “moved their operation into the White House.”
“They now have the full force and power of the United States government where they can bring these cases,” Schwartz added.
Yoshino agreed, telling ABC News that the president is now putting the “muscle of the executive branch behind the impact of that decision.”
Yoshino said that while the Supreme Court case addressed the higher education admissions process and was not about diversity and inclusion efforts in the private sector, “it gave us such a clear window into how [the Supreme Court] was thinking about the issue of race discrimination.”
The Supreme Court ruled that “in the same way that you can’t discriminate against a person of color, you also can’t discriminate against a white individual,” according to Yoshino. “That contrasts that with the previous jurisprudence that said you’re allowed to use a [race] classification in narrow circumstances so long as your intent is to lift up a historically subordinated group.”
According to Schwartz, while the Trump administration is “not creating new laws” regarding the legality of DEI through his executive order, the Department of Justice is gearing up to bring cases against private companies by arguing that existing laws “already prohibit many of the DEI programs that exist.”
Schwartz also pointed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as a federal agency that is likely to help advance the White House’s anti-DEI efforts. The federal agency, which has the authority to investigate and prosecute cases of alleged employment discrimination, is now led by Trump appointee Andrea Lucas, who said in a statement upon being named EEOC acting chair Jan. 21 that her priorities are “consistent with the President’s Executive Orders,” and include “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.”
“Our employment civil rights laws are a matter of individual rights. We must reject the twin lies of identity politics: that justice is measured by group outcomes and that civil rights exist solely to remedy harms against certain groups,” Lucas’ statement continued. “I am committed to ensuring equal justice under the law and to focusing on equal opportunity, merit, and colorblind equality.”
ABC News’ Kiara Alfonseca and Sabina Ghebremedhin contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Republican Rep. Chip Roy said Tuesday that he doesn’t think House Speaker Mike Johnson has the necessary votes to remain speaker in Friday’s leadership election.
“Right now, I don’t believe that he has the votes on Friday, and I think we need to have the conference get together so we can get united,” Roy told Fox Business.
The speaker vote comes after a number of House Republicans grew frustrated with Johnson during the final days of the 118th Congress, which saw a bitter fight over spending that nearly caused a government shutdown before Christmas.
Roy is a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus whose chair, Rep. Andy Harris, has also said he is undecided on whether to support Johnson. They’re among 15 House Republicans by ABC News’ count who are undecided on whether they’ll vote for Johnson.
Depending on attendance during Friday’s vote, Johnson may only be able to afford to lose a single Republican vote to win the gavel.
The recent resignation of former Rep. Matt Gaetz will leave the House with 434 members — 219 Republicans and 215 Democrats.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has already said he won’t support Johnson, even after Monday’s endorsement from President-elect Donald Trump. GOP Rep. Victoria Spartz of Indiana and a number of other members have also expressed skepticism about Johnson.
“Victoria is a good friend and Thomas is a good friend and they raise reasonable concerns,” Roy told Fox. “I remain undecided as do a number of my colleagues because we saw so many of the failures last year that we are concerned about that might limit or inhibit our ability to advance the president’s agenda.”
Roy expressed concern about the events that unfolded on Capitol Hill in the week leading up to Christmas, including the original government funding bill that was torpedoed by Trump and his allies.
Billionaire Elon Musk, who was tapped by Trump to run the new private advisory “Department of Government Efficiency,” initially trashed a bipartisan funding bill that would have averted a shutdown in a post on X as the House prepared to vote. Trump later issued a statement opposing the bill and demanding that it include provisions to either raise or eliminate the nation’s debt ceiling before his inauguration on Jan. 20.
The bipartisan bill ultimately failed. A bill that included Trump’s debt ceiling demands also failed. A third attempt that included $100 billion for disaster aid, $30 billion for farmers and a one-year extension of the farm bill, provisions that were in the original measure, passed in the House at the 11th hour and 38 minutes past the deadline in the Senate.
The rush to get a bill passed before the deadline caused Johnson to forgo the rule that allows members 72 hours to read legislation before a vote.
Trump endorsed Johnson on Monday, saying “Speaker Mike Johnson is a good, hard working, religious man,” Trump wrote at the end of a lengthy social media post. “He will do the right thing, and we will continue to WIN. Mike has my Complete & Total Endorsement.”
Musk on Monday also backed Johnson, writing on X, “I feel the same way! You have my full support.”
But that seems to have done little to ease Roy’s concerns.
“I respect like Thomas that President Trump supports Mike, he’s a good friend, but let’s consider what happened the week before Christmas,” Roy said.
Roy said the Republican conference needs to get on the same page before Friday.
“What we need to do is unite around a plan to deliver for the president. Right now I do not believe that the conference has that,” Roy said.
Spartz said Monday some of her GOP colleagues are interested in the speaker’s gavel, but she wouldn’t reveal which members because they don’t want to publicly oppose Johnson.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge in Rhode Island has formally blocked the Trump administration’s spending freeze, saying in an order this afternoon that the funding freeze is likely a violation of the Constitution.
“During the pendency of the Temporary Restraining Order, Defendants shall not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate Defendants’ compliance with awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the States, and Defendants shall not impede the States’ access to such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms,” Judge John McConnell Jr. wrote.
“The Court finds that the record now before it substantiates the likelihood of a successful claim that the Executive’s actions violate the Constitution and statutes of the United States,” he added in the 13-page decision in the lawsuit filed by 22 state attorneys general.
Earlier this week, McConnell signaled he would issue a temporary restraining order barring the Trump administration from freezing federal loans and grants, raising concerns the White House would try to enact the same policy described in the now-rescinded Office of Management and Budget.
The administration issued the memo Monday night and gave agencies a 5 p.m. deadline on Wednesday, however, a Washington, D.C., federal judge temporarily blocked it from going through following a lawsuit.
Even after the OMB rescinded the memo on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X, claiming, “This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented.”
The post by Leavitt, and possible attempt to sidestep an injunction, drew mention in McConnell’s order, with him writing, “Defendants shall also be restrained and prohibited from reissuing, adopting, implementing, or otherwise giving effect to the OMB Directive under any other name or title or through any other Defendants (or agency supervised, administered, or controlled by any Defendant), such as the continued implementation identified by the White House Press Secretary’s statement of January 29, 2025.”
McConnell had harsh words for the Trump administration and justified his order — despite the OMB’s change of policy — based on Leavitt’s post.
“The evidence shows that the alleged rescission of the OMB Directive was in name-only and may have been issued simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts,” he wrote.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
