Probe finds no evidence feds were involved in inciting Jan. 6 attack
NurPhoto via Getty Images, FILE
(WASHINGTON) — An independent watchdog probe uncovered no evidence that federal agents were involved in inciting the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, according to a report released Thursday, undercutting years of baseless claims spread by far-right political figures who have alleged the FBI played a significant role in the attack.
The long-awaited report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz found no evidence that FBI undercover employees were present among the thousands of Trump supporters who stormed the building, or even among the crowds of Trump’s supporters who attended protests around Washington, D.C. that day.
While the report confirmed there were 26 informants in Washington, D.C., who were dubbed within the FBI as “confidential human sources” or CHSs, Horowitz uncovered no evidence suggesting that any were instructed to join the assault on the Capitol or otherwise encourage illegal activity by members of the pro-Trump mob.
Moreover, the IG’s report found that three of the confidential informants were specifically tasked by FBI field offices with reporting on suspects in specific domestic terrorism cases who were believed to be attending events on Jan. 6, and one of those entered the Capitol during the riot itself.
Twenty-three others were in Washington but were not found to have been instructed to be there by any FBI field offices, and of those 23, three entered the Capitol while 11 entered the restricted areas around the building, the probe found.
The report found that none of the four informants who entered the Capitol have been prosecuted to date by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
In a statement responding to the report’s findings, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said they have generally “not charged those individuals whose only crime on January 6, 2021 was to enter the restricted grounds surrounding the Capitol, which has resulted in the Office declining to charge hundreds of individuals; and we have treated the CHSs consistent with this approach.”
While the FBI has faced serious scrutiny over the past four years over whether they failed to properly prepare for Congress’ election certification and the possibility of an attack on the Capitol by Trump’s supporters, Horowitz’s report determined that the bureau “took significant and appropriate steps in advance of January 6” as part of its supporting role that day.
The report also found that the FBI did not properly canvass all the field offices for intelligence on potential activity prior to the attack.
FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate described the lack of a canvass prior to Jan. as a “basic step that was missed,” and told the inspector general’s office that he would have expected a formal canvassing of sources to have occurred.
The inspector general found that while the FBI did not intentionally mislead Congress about the lack of canvassing field offices, they were not accurate in their assessment.
In June of 2023, Senate Democrats released a report that directly faulted the FBI for failing to “sound the alarm and share critical intelligence information that could have helped law enforcement better prepare for the events of January 6th.”
The report detailed a series of tips and other online traffic in advance of Jan. 6 that the lawmakers said the FBI was aware of that gave clear indications Trump’s supporters were planning for violence to prevent the certification of President Biden’s 2020 victory.
In the leadup to Jan. 6, the FBI did not have any “potentially critical intelligence” in their possession that wasn’t provided to other law enforcement entities, the IG said in the new report released Thursday.
More than 1,500 people across nearly all 50 states have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, with crimes ranging from illegal trespassing on Capitol grounds, to assaults on federal officers and seditious conspiracy.
Court proceedings over the past three years, including in the seditious conspiracy trial against members of the far-right Proud Boys group, have shed light on some FBI informants who were either monitoring or among those in the crowd of Trump’s supporters on Jan. 6, 2021. Right wing media and some far-right political figures have seized on the presence of confidential human sources to push the conspiracy theory that the FBI or ‘deep state’ was involved in fomenting the crowd to violence — claims that even many attorneys for Jan. 6 defendants have rejected as false.
“Our review determined that none of these FBI CHSs was authorized by the FBI to enter the Capitol or a restricted area or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6,” Horowitz said in a statement announcing his report.
(WASHINGTON) — Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the leaders of Trump’s new “Department of Government Efficiency,” have found themselves at odds with some of Trump’s far-right supporters over their support for H-1B visas, which allow foreign skilled professionals to work in America.
The debate was sparked over the Christmas holiday when Laura Loomer, a conservative social media figure who faced criticism when she traveled with President-Elect Donald Trump on some campaign stops, criticized Trump’s appointment of Silicon Valley entrepreneur Sriram Krishnan as his senior policy adviser for artificial intelligence.
Criticizing a post from Krishnan where he advocated the removal of country caps for green cards, Loomer called the appointment “deeply disturbing,” prompting an online battle between the business leaders who say the work visas are essential to employing high-qualified foreign workers and Trump supporters who argued it was a way for business leaders to have cheap labor rather than provide job opportunities for Americans.
Both Ramaswamy and Musk made numerous posts on X claiming H-1B visas are essential because American culture doesn’t prioritize success in science and engineering careers compared to other countries.
“Our American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long (at least since the 90s and likely longer). That doesn’t start in college, it starts YOUNG,” Ramaswamy posted on X.
“A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers,” he added.
Musk, who has said he once worked in the United States on an H-1B visa, said he has depended on these work visas for the operation of his tech companies and that they are essential due to the number of skilled workers needed to handle the rise of new technologies.
“OF COURSE my companies and I would prefer to hire Americans and we DO, as that is MUCH easier than going through the incredibly painful and slow work visa process,” he posted. “HOWEVER, there is a dire shortage of extremely talented and motivated engineers in America.” Loomer and other far-right conservatives have also argued that the expansions of such programs would go against Trump’s immigration crackdown.
While she and others have accused Musk and Ramaswamy of hindering Trump’s aggressive immigration proposals, the business leaders have argued that any such reforms would not hinder the program’s extensive vetting process.
“Maybe this is a helpful clarification: I am referring to bringing in via legal immigration the top ~0.1% of engineering talent as being essential for America to keep winning,” Musk wrote on X.
“This is like bringing in the Jokic’s or Wemby’s of the world to help your whole team (which is mostly Americans!) win the NBA,” he said, referencing two foreign-born basketball stars.
Now, the business leaders are being accused of using Trump for their own personal gain.
“We are substituting a third world migrant invasion for a third world tech invasion. Same shit,” Loomer posted on X. “Except this invasion won’t be done by rapist foreigners who look and smell like garbage. It will be done by career leftist tech billionaires who hate Trump deep down inside.”
Further showing a divide among conservatives over the issue, former Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley also weighed in, pushing back on a post from Ramaswamy and arguing American workers should be prioritized over foreigners.
“There is nothing wrong with American workers or American culture,” she said. “All you have to do is look at the border and see how many want what we have. We should be investing and prioritizing in Americans, not foreign workers.”
In June, David Sacks, who will be the president-elect’s AI and crypto czar, interviewed Trump for his “All In” podcast and asked Trump if he would expand H-1B work visas for tech workers after fixing the border — to which Trump said “yes.”
In that same episode, Trump also promised to award all international graduates with green cards, saying, “I want to do, and what I will do, is you graduate from a college, I think you should get, automatically as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country. That includes junior colleges, too.”
His campaign later walked back that promise, saying there would be a vetting process.
“He believes, only after such vetting has taken place, we ought to keep the most skilled graduates who can make significant contributions to America,” Karoline Leavitt, incoming White House press secretary, said in a statement to ABC News at the time. “This would only apply to the most thoroughly vetted college graduates who would never undercut American wages or workers.”
ABC News’ Zohreen Shah contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — As Democratic governors prepare to navigate and resist parts of President-elect Donald Trump’s next administration, one told ABC News she is most alarmed by Trump’s tariff plan.
“Tariffs would be devastating to our economy, especially with the amount of trade we do with Canada,” Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey told ABC News.
Trump has threatened to impose a 25% across the board tariff on Mexico and Canada, in addition to a 10% tariff on goods imported from China. These are the U.S.’s top three trading partners. Economists warn this would raise prices on everyday goods and wreak havoc on the economy.
“I’m a governor who’s come in, cut taxes, worked to lower housing costs, grow the economy. If he were to impose tariffs — it would first of all — I think it’s not smart to do — and it would be devastating to consumers,” Healey said, “Think about all the housing we’re trying to build here right now — what will that do to housing costs?”
In an interview with NBC News that aired on Sunday, Trump said he couldn’t guarantee that his tariff plan would not raise prices for American consumers.
Other Democratic governors, who gathered last weekend for the first time since the election for a winter meeting in Beverly Hills, California, said Trump’s tariff proposals were a chief concern among a number of others: threats to entitlements, his immigration proposals, and repeals of climate and reproductive protections. Several high-profile governors told ABC News they’re deep into preparations to use legislative, executive or legal actions to combat Trump’s moves.
At the Beverly Hilton over the weekend, the tight-knit group of Democratic talent — many of whom will be some of the strongest detractors of Trump’s policies and also some of the best-positioned to be at the top of the party’s presidential ticket in 2028 — gathered for private, closed-door meetings with one another, donors and other stakeholders. The group of about 18 governors and governors-elect, hosted by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, focused on how to navigate through Trump’s leadership, according to several who spoke with ABC News, rather than any significant post-election analysis following the Democrats’ losses last month.
The group of governors in Beverly Hills included many of the likely 2028 contenders, including blue state leaders like Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who have been actively on offense against Republican leadership since Nov. 6, and red state ones like Democratic Governors Association Vice Chair and Chair-elect Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear.
Healey, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz were also on the guest list — many of whom have questions looming about their own political futures.
“I would expect that we’ll put up quite a fight to take the House back. And I think that we’ll have an incredible bench in the primary ’28,” New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told ABC News about the plans of many of the governors.
Different tones in taking on Trump
The governors are striking different tones as they prepare for Trump’s presidency.
The strongest, most combative voices of course have been from leaders like Newsom, who initiated a recently convened a special legislative session in California to increase funding for its Department of Justice and other agencies so they’ll be able to quickly file litigation to challenge actions taken by a second Trump administration. Pritzker, too, has made not-so-veiled threats about how he’d approach the administration should it “come for” his people, and recently announced his position as co-chair, along with Jared Polis of Colorado, of a new nonpartisan coalition of governors committed to protecting the “state-level institutions of democracy” ahead of Trump’s presidency.
Other governors encouraged their peers to meet this moment offensively through their agendas.
“Democratic governors should approach this with strength and resolution and an activist agenda. Because this is the place where we can make progress too,” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee told ABC News.
“You can’t stop some 85% of the things I would like to do in that state, so I think the order of the day is defend where we can in fighting with an advance every day with our own ambitions and unaffected by him, so that shadow doesn’t fall in our state,” said Inslee, who is leaving his seat this winter to make way for incoming Gov. Bob Ferguson.
But a different group of governors are acting much more lukewarm in their approaches, emphasizing their desire to “work” with the Trump administration and some citing past collaborations with the president-elect’s team, like during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Beshear said last weekend that Democrats needed to lean into “reason” while Trump is in office and that he’s willing to work with the incoming administration.
“The middle ground, middle of the road, common ground, common sense, is open. It’s open,” Beshear told a group of reporters on Saturday.
Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, the DGA’s chair, said this weekend that she wasn’t yet anticipating Trump or his agencies’ actions, but “We will always look for ways to work together” with the caveat that she’ll “draw the line” on things “that they push us to do that we think are wrong, illegal, anything like that.”
The varying approaches from governors to Trump’s agenda could be a coordinated strategy as the group wrestles with how best to support each other within a party attempting to rebuild — a complicated task as they also eye each other as potential presidential primary competition.
“We know how to create space to protect people and protect the priorities,” Lujan Grisham told ABC, noting that she and many other governors aren’t officially part of Pritzker and Polis’ new coalition, for example. “We did it on climate. We still do it on climate. We did it on reproductive premiums, we’re gonna have to still do it on reproductive premiums, and we’ll do some test cases in states that allow us to frame and direct these coalitions.”
“We want to be strategic about what it is that we are announcing. And here’s why: We’ve got a president-elect and a team that, before this and every day, said ‘We’re going to punish anyone in our way, and we’re going to particularly punish states,'” she went on. “And the difference in California versus New Mexico — California is definitely on the radar. I don’t minimize what the Trump administration can negatively do to my state, but we’re also very effective at watching and understanding what’s occurring, and then we can deploy our joint efforts pretty damn fast.”
Plans to fight Trump’s tariff, immigration proposals
While governors can mount legal fights against parts of Trump’s plan, the president can use executive power to impose sweeping tariffs.
But for immigration, on the other hand, governors can resist Trump’s proposals in clearer ways.
Border state Gov. Lujan Grisham told ABC News she’d block Trump’s ability to use detention centers, deploy the National Guard or even request data in her state if he attempted mass deportations.
“I take him at his word. He says he’s going to do, try to do mass deportations,” she said, adding that she wouldn’t be a partner in those moves: “There’s a lot that he can’t do by himself.” .”I mean, I’ve made it very clear over a number of years on this issue is that I will not use our National Guard to perform that kind of service,” Kelly told reporters.
“I will not send them to the border. We have had Guard members go to the border, but they have been federalized when they’ve been down there. I don’t see that as the role of the National Guard — they are there to serve Kansas, Kansas issues, so I don’t see that changing… The State Police are mine, and it’s not their job, either. So we will take the same approach as we have with the Guard,” Kelly added.
On immigration, most Democratic governors agree that violent criminals need to be deported, noting that it’s always been the case that local and state law enforcement work with federal authorities on investigating crimes. But where many governors draw the line is on deporting undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in America for a long time, arguing it’s inhumane and damages the economy.
“We don’t know what President Trump’s immigration plan is going to look like at the end of the day. He is a master of saying something, creating a great deal of noise, and then the reality may be different. So I’m going to wait to see exactly what it is he ultimately proposes,” incoming North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein told reporters about his plans to respond to Trump’s immigration moves.
“The people of North Carolina have every right to be safe in their communities, and anybody who commits a violent crime must be held accountable, fully, and that’s whether they’re in this country as American citizens or they’re here as undocumented people, and if they’re here undocumented, they should be deported,” Stein said.
They also question how Trump will execute his plan. Trump could direct the National Guard to help with transport and logistics, but one Democratic governor told ABC News these are precious resources, and they need their National Guard for emergencies like storms, fires and severe flooding.
Trump’s team has discussed in the past how to strip federal resources from Democratic-run cities if they refuse to work with the administration on deporting undocumented immigrants, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Blue state governors say they’re concerned about the Trump administration weaponizing federal funding and “picking winners and losers.” One governor told ABC News their state is focused on locking down every federal dollar the state is entitled to, and securing all of the funding made available through the Biden administration’s infrastructure law and CHIPS and Science Act.
In California, Newsom has also started to “Trump-proof” his budget, which is one of the aims of his move to convene the legislature last week.
Participants in the annual Christmas Parade march down Main Street, December 1, 2023, in Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas. The vast majority of rural Starr County, which follows the Rio Grande River border with Mexico, is Mexican American, and Spanish is the most commonly spoken first language. The area is a center for migrants crossing into the United States, but many residents have family on both sides of the border and cross legally on a regular basis. (Andrew Lichtenstein/ Getty Images)
(RIO GRANDE CITY, TX) — Starr County, Texas, voted predominantly Republican this month — for the first time in 100 years.
Home to some 75,000 residents across about 1,200 square miles, it has a relatively small footprint, in a state where everything is glorified for its bigness.
But it’s been making an outsized impression in national politics. Even after its historic flip from blue to red, a century in the making, it’s continued to garner headlines.
Last week, Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham offered up 1,402 acres of Starr County to facilitate President-elect Donald Trump’s mass deportation plans.
In a letter to Trump dated Nov. 19, Buckingham said she’s offering the land, located along the border of Mexico, “to be used to construct deportation facilities.”
She has also proposed alternative uses for it, including as a site for detention centers.
“Now it’s essentially farmland, so it’s flat, it’s easy to build on. We can very easily put a detention center on there — a holding place as we get these criminals out of our country,” Buckingham said in a recent interview with Fox News.
The land, which Buckingham declared property of the state in 2023, adds to another parcel previously owned by the Texas General Land Office, bringing the southern border acreage that it controls in Starr County up to 4,000.
ABC News’ Mireya Villarreal visited Starr County to ask residents what issues and values most influenced them to vote for Republican candidates this year, instead of upholding their century-long blue streak.
“The economy is just driving, I think, everybody crazy,” said Becky Garza, the owner of Texas Cafe in Rio Grande City, the largest city in Starr County.
She explained that she used to complain about buying a box of eggs for $10, and now they’re $20.
“If things don’t get better, I might have to either cut staff, cut hours, or I’m going to start with cutting hours and then from there work it, maybe cut down, maybe cut the menu, you know, to keep the place open, you know, because I don’t want to lose my my customers,” Garza said.
And she doesn’t think she’s the only one who’s making those kinds of hard decisions, she told ABC News.
Jaime Escobar, the mayor of neighboring Roma, another city of Starr County, agrees. He suggested that residents are more influenced by the local economy than what’s being said in Washington, D.C.
“We no longer want to be considered just a poor community because we’re rich culturally,” he told ABC News. “We’re proud of our Mexican-American heritage, but we don’t — no longer want to be dependent just on the government.”
But with D.C. being invited into their backyard, it’s bound to bring the topic of migration and deportation to the forefront — even for those who may not have prioritized the issue during the election cycle.
Asked about how people might respond to a detention facility in nearby Starr County, Escobar said, “People don’t want families to be torn apart. That’s the last thing we want.”
“But at the same time,” he added, “we hope that Trump and his administration do the right thing and focus on the criminal element first, and then see how in the meantime, we’ll see how the policies can be implemented in a better way.”
Buckingham, on the other hand, believes that “folks who live down on the border feel really abandoned by those open border policies.”
She told ABC News, “They feel like it’s directly harming their communities, both their safety and their prosperity.”
In the same interview this week with ABC News, Buckingham also said that she would “absolutely” offer up even more of Texas, the way that she did Starr County.
“I have 13 million acres. If any of them can be of help in this process, we’re happy to have that discussion,” Buckingham said.
Trump has said he would carry out his mass deportation plans — a top campaign promise — by declaring a national emergency and using “military assets” to deport migrants currently living in the U.S. without legal permission.
He backed up his commitment with the choice of several immigration hard-liners to join his administration, including South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for secretary of homeland security and former director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Tom Homan as “border czar.” Both picks require Senate confirmation.
But with an estimated 11 million people presumed to be living in the U.S. without legal immigration status, the promises have raised questions of both feasibility and cost.
Removing them could cost billions of dollars per year, according to estimates from the American Immigration Council.
And while Republican-friendly areas of Texas might feel compelled to support the effort, other southern border states, like Arizona and California, have already expressed their disinterest.
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs told ABC News Live last week that she would not use state police or the National Guard to help with mass deportation.
“We will not be participating in misguided efforts that harm our communities,” she said.
