House passes Laken Riley Act as first bill of new Congress
Christian Monterrosa/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The House voted at 1 p.m. Tuesday on the Laken Riley Act, passing the bill as its first piece of legislation of the 119th Congress on a vote of 264 to 159.
Forty-eight Democrats voted in favor of the bill.
“Laken Riley was brutally murdered by an illegal alien that President Biden and the Democrats let into this country with their open border policy,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement after the vote. “It is hard to believe after countless horrific stories like Laken’s, ANY House Democrats would vote against deporting illegal aliens who commit violent crimes against American citizens.
“But 159 just did, demonstrating some Democrats have ignored the loud and clear message from voters in this election who demanded secure borders, the deportation of violent illegal aliens, and laws that put the safety and security of the American people first,” he added.
Reintroduced by Georgia Rep. Mike Collins, a Republican, the legislation pins Riley’s death on the Biden administration’s open-border policies and grants power to attorneys general to sue the federal government if they can show their states are being harmed over failure to implement national immigration policies. The measure also allows states to sue the Department of Homeland Security for harm caused to citizens allegedly due to illegal immigration.
The bill was named after Riley, a nursing student who was murdered by illegal immigrant Jose Ibarra while jogging on campus at the University of Georgia. Ibarra was sentenced to life in prison for the murder.
“The only thing President Biden did after Laken’s tragic death was apologize for calling her murderer an illegal,” Johnson said ahead of the vote. “That’s outrageous. We all know the real victim here was young Laken. There are real consequences to policy decisions. This one was deadly.”
The House previously passed the bill in March by a vote of 251-170, with 37 Democrats voting in favor. The bill was expected to pass again with bipartisan support.
“House Republicans heard the voices of those who wanted change and voted to pass the Laken Riley Act,” Johnson said Tuesday. “We will always fight to protect Americans, and today’s success is just the beginning of Republican efforts to undo the catastrophic damage caused by years of the Democrats’ failed leadership.”
The measure now heads to the Senate, where Majority Leader John Thune teed up a procedural vote on the Laken Riley Act, which could occur as soon as this week. It will be one of the first legislative actions taken by the new Senate.
The bill will need 60 votes to advance through the upper chamber. Even with the Republicans’ new 53-vote majority, it could prove difficult to court the necessary Democratic support to advance it.
So far, only one Democrat, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, is reportedly co-sponsoring the bill, which is being led in the chamber by Sens. Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Ted Budd, R-N.C. It is unclear whether there will be requisite Democratic support to clear the Senate.
The Senate, under Democratic leadership last session, never considered the act as a standalone bill. But it previously considered the Laken Riley Act when Senate Republicans forced a vote on it as an amendment to a sweeping government funding package in March. The amendment was considered as a government shutdown loomed, and changes to the bill would have likely forced a government shutdown.
No Democrats voted for it at the time, though it later earned the support of Montana Sen. Jon Tester, who lost reelection to Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy.
(WASHINGTON) — As his time in the White House comes to a close, President Joe Biden has implemented a series of executive orders and rules, trying to cement his policies before Donald Trump returns with the threat of undoing them.
From using provisions in federal law to ban much offshore drilling to commuting the sentences of 37 federal death row inmates, Biden has been determined to accomplish the political goals he set out to do four years ago.
Trump, never one to mince words against his rival, has condemned Biden’s moves, claiming he was hurting his agenda — what he says Americans voted for in November.
“They say we’re going to have a smooth transition. All they do is talk,” the president-elect told reporters Tuesday.
“I’m going to put it back on day one. I’m going to have it revoked on day one. We’ll go immediately if we need to… they try to be sneaky,” he said of Biden’s drilling ban.
Some academic policy experts, however, say Biden’s eleventh-hour decisions are not out of the ordinary, especially when it comes to a change of parties in the White House.
“This is pretty typical. Trump is just complaining about it louder,” 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.
The experts noted that Trump’s claims Biden is tying his hands are far from true as some of Biden’s policies can be overturned and mitigated.
On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security announced the extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for asylum seekers from Venezuela, El Salvador, Sudan, and Ukraine. Over 900,000 current beneficiaries will now have 18-month extensions, according to the order.
TPS is one of the few ways that an administration can protect a large group of migrants without congressional approval, however, it’s also within the DHS secretary’s power to end it. Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance have vowed to end the program, which Trump attempted to do back during his first administration.
Biden announced earlier in the week a ban on offshore drilling using provisions in the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to push forward with the proposal. Under the act, the policy change can only be reversed through an act of Congress.
Dan Mallinson, a professor of public policy and administration at Penn State Harrisburg, told ABC News that it’s not unusual for administrations to pore through federal laws and regulations to find loopholes for executive orders that can’t be easily overturned.
“In a lot of cases, the executive order will be overturned even if it takes time, so those administrations will look for every win they can in the lame-duck session,” he said.
Mallinson said that Biden’s announcement this week of two national monuments in California which would preserve 840,000 acres from any federal drilling, was also done with the same kind of meticulous planning. He did note that Trump could change the plan by limiting the size of the monuments, which he did during his first term after similar moves by President Barack Obama.
Trump himself issued several of eleventh-hour orders during the last weeks of his first presidency, including one two days before he left office that would have scaled back punishments for regulations, only for Biden to reverse them in his first months in office.
“On the face of it, it’s pretty standard. Biden is not doing anything unusual compared to other presidents. It’s the normal course of things for decades,” Hanson said.
The experts pointed out that Trump also faced a similar situation in his first administration and undid several executive orders and changed various policies instituted by Obama in his first months of office, including his ban on offshore drilling.
Trump’s reversal of Obama’s order, however, was scaled back after then-Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a key Trump ally, raised concerns about how it would affect his state. The ban continued for Florida lands.
“It’s not always crystal clear if executive orders or last-minute policy changes will be reversed by the new president,” Mallison said.
The experts said when it comes to Biden’s moves, what was different is the messaging.
The president has been mostly silent during his lame-duck session and pushed on his policy changes with little fanfare, however, Trump has been making more headlines by sounding off on social media, interviews and other media appearances, Mallison noted.
And while Trump may make claims and boast as if he were in office, Biden still has power until Jan. 20, Mallison said.
“Trump is trying to exploit this mentality, which is wrong, that the government has to operate under the president-elect. But the reality is that, constitutionally, Biden is the president now and he can act on his authority,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — Pete Marocco, the Trump administration official tasked with the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), at a private “listening session” held at the State Department earlier this month with dozens of aid groups — some on the brink of financial collapse — opened the proceedings by making one request: that everyone stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Inside the Loy Henderson Conference Room, representatives from aid organizations, industry groups, and foreign embassies — reeling from the administration’s sweeping freeze on foreign aid and the unraveling of USAID — dutifully rose to their feet.
The aid groups were there in the hope that Marocco would provide answers on the future of foreign assistance. After the Pledge, Marocco outlined the Trump administration’s foreign aid plans, defending what he called a “total zero-based review,” and arguing that some areas of foreign aid required “radical change” before taking questions from those in attendance, according to an audio recording of the private meeting obtained by ABC News.
‘Nefarious actors in the agencies’
Multiple sources who attended the Feb. 13 meeting described the mood in the room as “deeply uncomfortable,” saying that some of the attendees who were representing groups teetering on bankruptcy were left “traumatized” by the tone and the lack of specific details.
During the discussion, a representative for World Vision, a global Christian humanitarian organization, asked Marocco about the impact of the freeze, noting that aid groups like his had been forced to bankroll U.S. government-funded programs with private money while awaiting overdue payments to be unpaused.
“Will the spigot open? We’ve gotten waivers, but the PMS system isn’t operating, so we’re bankrolling U.S. government-funded programs out of private money,” said Edward Brown, the vice president of World Vision, which provides poverty alleviation, disaster relief, and child welfare in nearly 100 countries.
Marocco responded that following President Donald Trump’s executive order halting foreign aid, some transactions were still being processed, prompting his team to “seize control” of the payment system to stop them — leaving some groups without payments that, weeks later, had still had not arrived.
“As far as payment, one of the reasons that there have been problems with some of the payments is because, despite the president’s executive order, despite the secretary’s guidance, we still had nefarious actors in the agencies that were trying to push out hundreds of illegal payments,” Marocco said. “And so we were able to seize control of that, stop them, take control of some of those people, and make sure that that money was not getting out the door.”
Marocco suggested that payments for organizations with existing contracts would resume the following Tuesday.
“I feel confident we’re going to have that pretty good by Tuesday of next week,” he said. “That does not mean everybody’s going to be caught up on everything that they want. But I think that our payment system will probably be fluid at that point.”
But Tuesday came and went, and many groups say they were still on the edge of bankruptcy — prompting some to escalate their legal battle against the administration.
On Monday, several USAID officials told ABC News that the payment system Marocco said would be fully restored was now technically operational, but that funding was still moving at an extremely slow pace and that many of the programs that were granted waivers to continue operations had still not received any money.
USAID officials said the lack of funding has rendered many of the exempted programs inoperative. Some have resorted to using stockpiled resources, but because these programs have been cut off from federal support for weeks, most report that they have few funds left and don’t anticipate they will be able to function for much longer, according to the officials.
On Friday, after a federal judge cleared the way for the administration to proceed with its plan to pull thousands of USAID staffers off the job in the U.S. and around the world, the Trump administration moved forward with its effort to dismantle USAID, telling all but a fraction of staffers worldwide that they were on leave as of Monday.
In a court-ordered affidavit filed last Tuesday, Marocco wrote that the agency “has authorized at least 21 payments” for grants, loans, and other foreign aid executed before Trump’s inauguration “that are in total worth more than $250 million and are expected to be paid this week.”
As of Monday, it was not clear whether those payments had been made.
When reached for comment, World Vision would not confirm to ABC News if payments had resumed, but told ABC News they were “complying with the executive order that pauses U.S. foreign assistance funding — with potential waivers for emergency food and lifesaving humanitarian assistance — for the next 90 days, while programs are reviewed for alignment with the current administration’s foreign policy.”
‘What we consider to be legitimate’
In one tense moment during the listening session, a senior Democratic Senate staffer pressed Marocco on whether, once the payments resumed, they would include reimbursements for work incurred before the Jan. 24 freeze.
“When payments resume, will they include work incurred before Jan. 24 in the payments forthcoming on Tuesday?” asked the staffer, who, when reached for comment by ABC News, asked not to be named our of fear of retribution.
Marocco would not guarantee that government-contracted work that occurred before the freeze would be reimbursed, stating that the Trump administration would only cover “legitimate expenses” — and noting that the administration’s definition of a legitimate expense may differ from the groups in the room.
“We will be looking at those,” Marocco said. “What we consider to be legitimate may not be the same thing that other people consider to be legitimate, but we’re going to.”
The staffer attempted to follow up, arguing that if the work had been incurred before the freeze, “it was legitimate at the time, right?”
“We’ve moved on to the next person,” Marocco responded.
In his affidavit filed on Tuesday, Marocco conveyed the scope and status of the government’s aid freeze. He wrote that, since Trump signed the executive order for a 90-day freeze, USAID had terminated nearly 500 grants and contracts. He said the agency “has not quantified” the total cost of those programs.
As of Tuesday, the State Department had terminated more than 750 foreign assistance-funded grants and contracts of its own and had suspended nearly 7,000 more, Marocco wrote.
A ‘cycle of dependency’
Marocco used the meeting with the organizations to paint a dire picture of U.S. foreign aid, claiming it had “devolved into a fiscal cycle of dependency, of presumption, arrogance, and frankly, folly, that is just astonishing.” He dismissed past reform efforts as ineffective, arguing that officials had merely “nibbled around the edges” rather than addressing what he saw as systemic failures.
He insisted the review was necessary to force difficult conversations about “what these programs are actually doing” and whether they should continue at all. And he framed the overhaul as part of President Trump’s broader effort to reshape Washington’s approach to foreign assistance.
“The American people deserve better. They require better. And President Trump has promised better,” he said, criticizing aid decisions made “behind closed doors in Congress, in small groups in Washington, D.C.”
Marocco told those gathered that the administration’s review extended beyond USAID and would encompass a range of federal agencies, including NASA, the Patent and Trademark Office, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM).
“If there is a tax dollar that is going out to a foreigner, we need to gain control of that and understand what it is we’re trying to achieve with our partners,” he said. “We want to identify all of that. We want to fix it. That’s the goal.”
Marocco made clear that the new foreign aid structure would be tied to Trump’s political priorities.
“With the Secretary of State, you will be in line,” Marocco said. “The foreign assistance review, you will follow the president’s foreign policy objectives. Or you will not be spending money abroad.”
He told the aid groups in the room they needed to justify their programs.
“You need to think about convincing someone — perhaps one of the women who is in my mother’s Bible study,” he said. “You need to think about somebody who’s working at a McDonald’s in Mississippi. You need to think about a grad student in Harlem.”
The Trump administration has received widespread condemnation from Democrats in Congress over its effort to slash foreign aid programs. “What Trump and Musk have done is not only wrong, it’s illegal,” Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia said earlier this month during a news conference outside USAID headquarters. “USAID was established by an act of Congress, and it can only be disbanded by an act of Congress. Stopping this will require action by the courts and for Republicans to show up and show courage and stand up for our country.”
‘Catastrophic’ harm
The Feb. 13 meeting came as the legal battle over the aid freeze was escalating. Last week, a coalition of aid groups asked a federal judge to intervene, arguing that the freeze violated existing funding agreements and had caused “catastrophic” harm to their humanitarian missions. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued a temporary restraining order halting the freeze, but aid organizations said their funding remained locked, leaving them scrambling to keep operations afloat.
Late Tuesday, Trump administration attorneys filed court papers arguing that their interpretation of the judge’s order allows the freeze to largely remain in place. The aid groups fired back Wednesday, urging the court to enforce the ruling.
“The court should not brook such brazen defiance of the express terms of its order,” they wrote in the filing.
Judge Ali, a Biden-era appointee, wrote Thursday that while Trump administration officials had “not complied” with his order, he would not hold them in contempt of court.
But he warned those officials not to buck what he characterized as his “clear” directive to lift their “blanket freeze” on aid disbursements.
(WASHINGTON) — With a committee vote scheduled Tuesday for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, Senate Democrats are demanding more details on the nominee’s connections to vaccine lawsuits and are saying Kennedy should promise to recuse himself from any vaccine-related decisions if confirmed health secretary.
The demands came in letter released Monday by Sens. Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren, after Kennedy told the lawmakers that he planned to divest his financial stake in one ongoing vaccine lawsuit to his adult son who practices law in California.
The description matches that of his son, Connor Kennedy, who is an attorney at Wisner Baum, a California-based law firm that is representing plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit against Gardasil, a vaccine intended to protect against HPV and deemed safe by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Warren and Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, called the arrangement of allowing his son to collect future referral fees in the lawsuit “troubling” and “plainly inadequate.”
“The arrangement outlined in your Ethics Agreement Amendment is plainly inadequate, as it would appear to allow an immediate family member to benefit financially from your position as Secretary,” wrote Wyden, D-Ore., and Warren, D-Mass.
It’s not clear whether the letter released Monday by the Democrats would impact Kennedy’s confirmation as health secretary, which could still be pushed through by the Republican majority. It is possible, however, that Republican senators with concerns about Kennedy’s nomination — including Sen. Bill Cassidy — could use the Democrats’ request to slow the confirmation process.
“Your past of undermining confidence in vaccines with unfounded or misleading arguments concerns me,” Cassidy, R.-La., a medical doctor, said in his opening remarks during a hearing last week on Kennedy’s nomination.
He added, “Can I trust that that is now in the past? Can data and information change your opinion? Or will you only look for data supporting a predetermined conclusion? This is imperative.”
The Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Cassidy, is scheduled to vote Tuesday on Kennedy’s nomination.
Warren and Wyden said they couldn’t trust Kennedy’s financial disclosures were “accurate and complete” because they don’t lay out how many cases Kennedy referred to Wisner Baum and whether vaccines were involved.
Wisner Baum has said it has not paid the nominee for any vaccine-related cases, as the current Gardasil case is ongoing.
Wyden and Warren said any involvement is a direct conflict of interest if he were to become health secretary because of his oversight of vaccines.
“By using your authority and bully pulpit as Secretary to sway the outcome of the litigation and secure a big judgment or settlement, you would increase the chances of a large payout for yourself,” they wrote.
