Trump administration compiling list of FBI agents to potentially fire or force out: Sources
Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is compiling a list of agents and other FBI officials from around the country who they believe should be fired or forced to resign in the coming days, several sources told ABC News.
Trump administration officials are especially looking at whether anyone tied in any way to former special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 and classified documents investigations of President Donald Trump should be included in the firings, according to the sources. They are also looking for anyone who may be resistant to carrying out some of the administration’s new initiatives, sources said.
Firings could begin as early as Friday, but a list is expected to be finalized on Monday, sources said.
The list of those who could be fired includes the heads of dozens of field offices across the country and could include scores of agents in the FBI’s Washington, D.C., Field Office alone, sources said.
An FBI spokesperson said in a statement to ABC: “The FBI is declining to comment on any questions regarding FBI personnel matters. We have also instructed the public affairs officers in our field offices to decline to comment as well.”
Trump’s nominee for FBI director, Kash Patel, was pressed Thursday during his confirmation hearing as to whether FBI agents who worked on Smith’s investigations would be protected from “retribution,” should he be confirmed.
“Every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard, and no one will be terminated for cases,” Patel said. “All FBI employees will be protected against political retribution.”
The FBI Agents Association said the actions “contradict the commitments” Patel made to the association ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing, saying Patel said FBI agents “would be afforded appropriate process and review and not face retribution based solely on the cases to which they were assigned.”
“If true, these outrageous actions by acting officials are fundamentally at odds with the law enforcement objectives outlined by President Trump and his support for FBI Agents,” the FBI Agents Association added in a statement. “Dismissing potentially hundreds of Agents would severely weaken the Bureau’s ability to protect the country from national security and criminal threats and will ultimately risk setting up the Bureau and its new leadership for failure.”
In the Oval Office later Friday, Trump was asked by reporters about Justice Department employees who may be fired or forced out in the coming days and he appeared to indicate it could be a “good thing.”
“If they fired some people over there, that’s a good thing because they were very bad,” Trump said. “They used the Justice Department to correct their political opponents, which in itself is illegal.”
Asked if he specifically requested any action, Trump denied, “No, but we have some very bad people over there. It was weaponized at a level that nobody’s ever seen before”
ABC News’ Kelsey Walsh contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Ever since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was picked by President-elect Donald Trump to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, he has been vocal about his plans to “Make America Healthy Again.”
Kennedy has vowed to crack down on dyes in the food industry and to reduce pesticides in the farm and agriculture industry.
He has called for restrictions on ultra-processed foods as part of an initiative to address the high rates of chronic disease in the United States, and he’s said more research needs to be conducted on vaccines.
Those plans could require him to override regulations set in place by the Food and Drug Administration or Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, and/or perhaps see new regulations put in place.
Political science experts say this may put him at odds with members of his own party, because Republicans typically advocate for fewer regulations and limited government oversight.
“I think where you would see the challenges would be on allocation of money,” Shana Gadarian, a professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in New York, told ABC News.
“If all of a sudden HHS is now in the business of passing more regulations on the food industry, on agriculture, we might see that a Republican Senate majority and a Republican House is less interested in allocating a budget to HHS that then would be under a different leadership,” she continued.
Praise from other Republicans
Despite Republican criticism of previous Democratic initiatives to tackle disease and childhood obesity, Kennedy has received praise from some Republicans.
“RFK Jr. has championed issues like healthy foods and the need for greater transparency in our public health infrastructure,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said in a statement earlier this month. “I look forward to learning more about his other policy positions and how they will support a conservative, pro-American agenda.”
Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin called Kennedy a “brilliant, courageous truth-teller whose unwavering commitment to transparency will make America a healthier nation,” and Sen. Josh Hawley called Trump’s decision to name him to head the HHS a “Bad day for Big Pharma!”
However, Gadarian said the support from some Republicans in the Senate may not translate to support among Republican constituents.
“We may want to separate what average people think about and know about [what Kennedy wants] and what elites in the party might have a vested interest in,” Gadarian said.
For farmers and others whose bottom lines might be negatively impacted by some of Kennedy’s proposed top-down policies, she said, “Those ideas of, like, removing pesticides from agriculture may actually be quite unpopular.”
Republicans’ distaste for regulation
Historically, the Republican party has been ideologically associated with a smaller, limited federal government.
During his January 1981 inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan stated, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” espousing the belief that the government should not intervene in American lives.
If Kennedy is confirmed, there may be some culling of regulations, such as the CDC decision on vaccines health insurers are required to cover, according to Gadarian.
But his confirmation may also lead to new regulations; for example, he might weigh in on which food dyes companies are allowed to use or the use of pesticides on farms.
While it isn’t yet fully clear how Kennedy could make all of his proposed changes directly through his leadership at HHS, as opposed to the Environmental Protection Agency or Department of Agriculture, he has called for restrictions on food additives, dyes and ultra-processed foods — which he could have direct influence over through the FDA.
Gadarian said this is not in line with the typical conservative view on regulations, which is to generally loosen them.
“I do think that increasing regulation on businesses like agriculture and others who use pesticides — or on the food industry — is, in fact, against a kind of idea of limited government, of loosening regulation so businesses can do business and not be encumbered by the federal government,” she said.
Robert Ravens-Seager, a professor of history and political science at American International College in Massachusetts, said he thinks the idea of Republicans being for “small” or “limited government” is a myth.
He said both Republicans and Democrats want government regulation, but they have different views on how it should be implemented.
“Once you are in the government, your dislike for government tends to diminish somewhat,” he told ABC News. “I think that in a very short amount of time, you’ve seen a change in the Republican party. They’ve changed from being a party of small government [and] I think that the government that’s going to be coming will be very heavy-handed.”
He added that he believes Kennedy could have an impact on the messaging around food and/or agriculture by advocating for consumers to buy what he says is safe and healthy. However, Ravens-Seager is not sure to what degree the impact will be.
“I definitely believe that he will have an impact on things like food additives, food safety, and the like,” Ravens-Seager said. “The food side, especially, goes against Republican orthodoxy and could make for some interesting debates, but the degree to which, on this issue in particular, he will find much support within the party seems doubtful.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, said last month he wanted to meet with Kennedy before a confirmation hearing and “educate” him about agriculture, indicating concerns about views Kennedy has expressed.
“I’m willing to have a discussion with him and find out where he’s coming from,” Grassley told reporters, according to Politico. “But I may have to spend a lot of time educating him about agriculture, and I’m willing to do that.”
Eitan Hersh, a professor of political science at Tufts University in Massachusetts, said it’s important to remember that many steps need to occur before new regulations are put in place, including Kennedy being confirmed by the Senate, new regulations being proposed and approved, potential discussion in Congress and enforcement of those regulations.
“This is all maybes, but I think that the signaling happening with putting RFK in HHS is showing some sense of priorities, and I think those priorities are not favoring, necessarily, the interest of business and protecting them from regulation,” he told ABC News.
ABC News’ Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Donald Trump’s administration has rescinded its sweeping directive that sought to pause potentially trillions in loans, grants and financial assistance, according to a memo obtained by ABC News.
“OMB memorandum M-25-13 is rescinded,” the short memo from Matthew Vaeth, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, reads. “If you have questions about implementing the President’s Executive Orders, please contact your agency General Counsel.”
The policy reversal follows a tumultuous 48 hours for the White House, as states and local governments raised concerns that funding for health care, law enforcement, disaster aid and infrastructure spending could be paused or delayed during the expansive rollout of the policy.
Amid the confusion, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., issued a stay of the policy through Monday as lawyers for the Department of Justice struggled to confirm the extent of the directive.
“Without this funding, Plaintiff States will be unable to provide certain essential benefits for residents, pay public employees, satisfy obligations, and carry on the important business of government,” 22 state attorneys general had said in the lawsuit challenging the policy Tuesday.
On Monday, the Office of Management and Budget ordered federal agencies to freeze any federal funding to activities that might be implicated by Trump’s executive orders, causing states, local governments and nonprofits to scramble to determine if their funding would be cut off. Less than 24 hours after the policy was revealed, the White House attempted to clarify the policy in a memo, saying programs that provide direct benefits to Americans — such as Social Security, Medicare and SNAP benefits — would be excluded from the freeze.
During the hearing Tuesday, the lawyer for the Department of Justice struggled to clarify exactly what would be affected.
“It seems like the federal government currently doesn’t actually know the full scope of the programs that are going to be subject to the pause. Is that correct?” U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan asked.
“I can only speak for myself, which is just based on the limited time frame here, that I do not have a comprehensive list,” DOJ lawyer Daniel Schwei said, adding, “it just depends” on the type of program and funding source.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — After months of legal wrangling, Rudy Giuliani on Friday turned over his luxury sports car, several watches, a ring and financial assets to two Georgia election workers he defamed in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, his lawyer wrote Friday.
A federal jury ordered Giuliani last year to pay Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss nearly $150 million for defaming them with false accusations that the mother and daughter committed election fraud while the two were counting ballots in Georgia’s Fulton County on Election Day in 2020.
The attorneys for both sides waged a back in forth in court for months over the delivery of those assets and, last week, attorneys representing Freeman and Moss said Giuliani’s apartment was virtually empty when their receivership entered the property.
The poll workers’ representatives accused Giuliani of “secreting away” his property.
The former New York City mayor was given a Nov. 14 deadline to turn over the shares in his Upper East Side co-op apartment, valuable sports memorabilia, a blue Mercedes-Benz convertible that once belonged to Lauren Bacall, and luxury watches — including one that belonged to Giuliani’s grandfather.
Joseph Cammarata, Giuliani’s attorney, said in a four-page letter to U.S. Judge Lewis Liman, that “watches and a ring were delivered via FedEx” to an address in Atlanta on Friday morning, and that “the Mercedes Benz automobile was delivered as requested” to an address in Florida.
Giuliani’s bank was “advised to turn over all non-exempt funds” to the plaintiffs, as well, according to the filing.
Liman issued a warning that he would file a motion of contempt if Giuliani didn’t comply with the order to transfer the assets to Freeman and Moss.
Earlier on Friday, Ted Goodman, a spokesman for Giuliani, posted a video on X with several watches arrayed on a table.
“This right here, folks, this is the accumulation of 60 years of hard work,” Goodman said.
Despite giving up those assets, Cammarata argued that his client should not give up other assets.
He wrote a lengthy list of items they deemed “exempt,” including some jewelry of lower value, a refrigerator, a radio receiver and other household furniture. He also said a Joe DiMaggio jersey was part of the “overbroad” turnover list and will fight to keep it.
The attorney argued that the court “should never have allowed the turnover” of the Mercedes Benz, arguing that the car should be appraised and returned to Giuliani if the value does not exceed $5,500.
Cammarata also requested that the court reschedule a trial in this matter currently scheduled for Jan. 16, 2025, until after the inauguration, as Giuliani “plans to be present” at events in Washington that week.
Representatives for Freeman and Moss didn’t immediately comment on the delivery of the assets.
