HHS freezes $10 billion in child care funding for 5 Democratic states, alleging fraudulent programs

(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is drawing backlash from former Federal Reserve and Treasury officials as well as current members of Congress, including those in President Donald Trump’s own party.

A bipartisan group of top economic officials released a blistering statement on Monday calling the probe an “unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine” the central bank’s independence.

“This is how monetary policy is made in emerging markets with weak institutions, with highly negative consequences for inflation and the functioning of their economies more broadly. It has no place in the United States whose greatest strength is the rule of law, which is at the foundation of our economic success,” read the statement from Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, Tim Geithner, Jacob Lew, Hank Paulson and others.

The investigation, announced by Powell in a rare video message on Sunday, is related to Powell’s testimony last June about the multi-year renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings in Washington. But Trump has made Powell a frequent target of his attacks and push to cut interest rates.

White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, who is on Trump’s short list to be the next Federal Reserve chair, said time will tell if the probe is a pretext for firing Powell over interest rates.

“Well, in the fullness of time, we’ll find out whether it looks like a pretext,” Hassett, who denied involvement in the probe, told CNBC in an appearance on Monday. “But right now, we’ve got a building that’s got, like, dramatic cost overruns and, you know, plans for the buildings that look inconsistent with the testimony. But, you know, again, I’m not a Justice Department person. I hope everything turns out OK.”

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, who serves on the Senate Banking Committee, said he will oppose the confirmation of any Trump nominee to the Federal Reserve until legal matters concerning Powell are resolved, which could make it difficult for a nominee to advance out of committee.

“If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump Administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none. It is now the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice that are in question,” Tillis said in a statement on Sunday night.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, in a post on X on Monday, said Tillis is “right in blocking any Federal Reserve nominees.”

“After speaking with Chair Powell this morning, it’s clear the administration’s investigation is nothing more than an attempt at coercion. If the Department of Justice believes an investigation into Chair Powell is warranted based on project cost overruns — which are not unusual — then Congress needs to investigate the Department of Justice. The stakes are too high to look the other way: if the Federal Reserve loses its independence, the stability of our markets and the broader economy will suffer,” Murkowski posted on X.

House Financial Services Chairman Rep. French Hill, a Republican, said  pursuing criminal charges against Powell is “an unnecessary distraction.” Sen. Kevin Cramer, another Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said that he does not believe Powell is a criminal and that he hopes the criminal matter will soon be put to rest.

House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Monday that “if the investigation is warranted, then they’ll have to play that out.” When pressed if he believed the probe is warranted, Johnson said, “I have not reviewed his testimony, so I am not sure, but that’s not really my lane.”

A spokesperson for Attorney General Pam Bondi said Bondi “has instructed her U.S. Attorneys to prioritize investigating any abuse of taxpayer dollars.” Powell said in his statement the probe was fueled by Trump’s monthslong pressure campaign on him to lower interest rates.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, slammed Trump as a “wannabe dictator” over his campaign against Powell.

“Acting like the wannabe dictator he is, Trump is trying to push out the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and complete his corrupt takeover of America’s central bank so that it serves his interests, along with his billionaire friends,” Warren said in a speech about the future of the Democratic Party ahead of 2028 at the National Press Club.

President Trump denied any involvement in the criminal probe during a brief interview with NBC News on Sunday night but continued his criticism of Powell’s leadership.

ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A set of recent polls have highlighted American voters’ opposition to taking over Greenland — and even greater opposition to taking it over by military force.

A Quinnipiac University poll found 55% of voters opposed to the United States trying to buy Greenland, with majorities of Democratic voters (85%) and independent voters (58%) opposed and a majority of Republican voters in support (67%). Greenland, though, is not for sale — with Danish and Greenlandic officials saying the island can’t be bought. Greenland is a self-governing territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Opposition rises to nearly 9 in 10 voters when asked if the U.S. should try to take Greenland by military force, something President Donald Trump has said “is always an option.” Just 9% of U.S. voters say they support the U.S. trying to take Greenland by military force.

In all, 86% of voters, including 95% of Democrats, 94% of independents and 68% of Republicans oppose the U.S. trying to take Greenland by military force.

Notably, few polls find this level of agreement on policy issues — and most Republicans rarely disagree with Trump.

The president is trying to take over the autonomous Danish territory, claiming earlier this week that “we need Greenland” and citing national security as a reason for the acquisition. Now, France and other NATO countries have sent troops for military exercises after representatives from Denmark and Greenland said they had “fundamental disagreements” with the U.S. 

A Reuters/Ipsos poll also found low levels of support for Trump’s push to take over Greenland. Just 17% of Americans said they approved of U.S. efforts to acquire Greenland, including a 40% minority of Republicans. Support was even lower among Democrats (2%) and others (9%).

When asked about taking Greenland using military force in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, just 4% of Americans said it was a good idea, including only 8% of Republicans.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll offered a “don’t know” response to those answering their survey, and large minorities of Americans said they did not have opinions on these issues.

Two-thirds of Americans say they are concerned that the U.S. acquiring the self-governing territory that is part of Denmark could harm NATO and U.S. relations with European countries. That includes about 9 in 10 Democrats, 4 in 10 Republicans and 7 in 10 independents.

The Quinnipiac poll was conducted Jan. 8-12 among 1,133 registered voters and has a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted Jan. 12-13 among 1,217 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The chairman of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee said the panel will move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against former President Bill Clinton after he failed to appear for a subpoenaed deposition on Tuesday as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The committee had threatened to hold the former president and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress if they did not appear for separate scheduled closed depositions set for Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively.

“I think everyone knows by now, Bill Clinton did not show up. And I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee. This wasn’t something that I just issued as chairman of the committee. This was voted on by the entire committee in a unanimous vote of the House Oversight Committee to subpoena former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” Oversight Chairman James Comer said Tuesday morning.

“We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress,” Comer, a Republican, later added.

A lawyer for the Clintons, David Kendall, has not responded to requests for comment on whether Hillary Clinton will appear on Capitol Hill for her Wednesday subpoenaed deposition. 

In a four-page letter posted on social media Tuesday morning, the Clintons publicly called out Comer for threatening to hold them in contempt of Congress.

“Despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment. This is not the way out of America’s ills, and we will forcefully defend ourselves,” the letter states.

The Clintons contend in the letter that Comer’s approach to the committee’s work on the Epstein investigation has “prevented progress in discovering the facts about the government’s role” and that the chairman has “done nothing” to force the Justice Department to comply with its disclosure obligations required by Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed late last year.

“We have tried to give you the little information that we have,” the Clintons wrote.  “We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific. If the Government didn’t do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work — to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. There is no evidence that you are doing so.”

For months, Republicans on the committee have been demanding that the Clintons provide testimony to lawmakers, citing the former president’s travels on Epstein’s private aircraft in the early 2000s and the Clinton “family’s past relationship” with Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. The panel initially issued subpoenas for the Clintons on Aug. 5 to appear in October. 

Kendall has continued to argue that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony. Kendall has contended that the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.

“There is simply no reasonable justification for compelling a former President and Secretary of State to appear personally, given that their time and roles in government had no connection to the matter at hand,” Kendall wrote in one of the letters sent to the committee in October of last year. He argued that the committee should excuse the Clintons, as the committee had done for five former attorneys general who were each excused after certifying to the committee that they had no relevant knowledge.

Bill Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing and denies having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.

Former Secretary of State Clinton “has no personal knowledge of Epstein or Maxwell’s criminal activities, never flew on his aircraft, never visited his island, and cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein. She has no personal knowledge of Maxwell’s activities with Epstein,” Kendall wrote. “President Clinton’s contact with Epstein ended two decades ago, and given what came to light much after, he has expressed regret for even that limited association,” an Oct. 6 letter to the committee says. 

Comer wrote in a letter to Kendall in October that the committee is “skeptical” that the Clintons have only limited information and stated it was up to the committee, not the Clintons, to make determinations of the value of the information.

“[T]he Committee believes that it should be provided in a deposition setting, where the Committee can best assess its breadth and value,” Comer wrote.  

Last month, in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department released several photographs of former President Clinton apparently taken during his international travels with Epstein and Maxwell from 2002 to 2003, although the released photographs contained no information identifying when or where they were taken. Following that disclosure, a spokesperson for the two-term Democratic president argued that the Trump administration released those images to shield the Trump White House “from what comes next, or from what they’ll try to hide forever.”

“So, they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” Clinton’s spokesperson Angel Ureña wrote on X Dec. 22.

Ureña did not respond to an email inquiry from ABC News on Monday.

What is contempt of Congress?

The House of Representatives can hold an individual “in contempt” if that person refuses to testify or comply with a subpoena. The contempt authority is considered an implied power of Congress.

“Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance, to punish the contemnor, and/or to remove the obstruction,” according to a report from the Congressional Research Service. 

Any person summoned as a congressional witness who refuses to comply can face a misdemeanor charge that carries a fine of up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison if that person is eventually found guilty. 

What would the process look like?

To hold someone in contempt of Congress, the Oversight Committee would first mark up and then vote to advance the contempt resolution. Once the committee approves the resolution, which is expected given the GOP majority, the resolution now could go to a vote in the full House.

A simple majority is needed to clear a contempt resolution on the floor. Notably, it does not require passage in the Senate.

The resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — under the Department of Justice — for possible criminal prosecution. 

History of contempt

Congress has held Cabinet officials in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a House subpoena, including Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in 2019 and then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012. The DOJ never prosecuted them even though the House voted to hold them in contempt.

The House held Peter Navarro, a former top trade adviser in the Trump administration, in contempt of Congress in 2022 for defying a subpoena to provide records and testimony to the now-defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro was sentenced to jail time. 

Steve Bannon, a Trump ally, was also held in contempt of Congress in 2022 for not complying with the Jan. 6 select committee. Bannon was also sentenced to prison time.

The GOP-led House voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress in 2024 over the DOJ failing to provide audio of then-President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur. The DOJ did not prosecute the case, but the audio was released.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.