Trump claims Biden pardons for Jan. 6 committee ‘void, vacant’
Win McNamee/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump claimed that former President Joe Biden’s preemptive pardons of members of the Jan. 6 Select Committee and others were “void, vacant, and of no future force of effect.”
Trump in a post to his Truth Social network went on to say that members of that House committee are “subject to investigation at the highest level” and baselessly accused them of being responsible for their own pardons, without Biden’s knowledge.
Making his claim about the pardons, Trump cited alleged use of an autopen during Biden’s administration.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has requested access to an Internal Revenue Service system that retains the personal tax information of millions of Americans, two sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
The system, known as the Integrated Data Retrieval System, is used by IRS employees to review tax information, issue notices and update taxpayer records.
Access to the files, which is tightly controlled within the agency, had not been granted as of this weekend, several sources told ABC News.
Still, the request itself has been received with alarm both within the government and among privacy experts who say that granting Musk access to Americans’ private taxpayer data could be extraordinarily dangerous.
Musk, estimated to be the richest man in the world, has criticized federal judges for curbing his power and called for their impeachment. Musk also has alleged without evidence or examples of wrongdoing that federal workers were defrauding taxpayers.
“We do find it rather odd that there are quite a few people in the bureaucracy who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars, but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position,” Musk told reporters on Feb. 12 while in the Oval Office with President Donald Trump. “We’re just curious as to where it came from.”
Earlier this month, DOGE employees demanded access to the Treasury Department’s vast federal payment system responsible for managing trillions of dollars in government expenditures. That access triggered a lawsuit by 19 states and has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge.
Sources say one DOGE staffer arrived at the IRS last Thursday seeking meetings with various offices about how the IRS collects and manages data and what each business unit within the IRS does. It is not clear whether that staffer made the request to access IDRS or if it came through via the White House.
The White House did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
According to the Washington Post, which first reported the development, the IRS is considering a memorandum of understanding that would give DOGE officials access to several systems, including IDRS.
Musk and the White House have not said what federal data the DOGE team has been able to get to, or what’s been done with the data that’s been acquired.
“People who share their most sensitive information with the federal government do so under the understanding that not only will it be used legally, but also handled securely and in ways that minimize risks like identity theft and personal invasion, which this reporting brings into serious question,” said Elizabeth Laird, a former state privacy officer now with the Center for Democracy and Technology.
When pressed by reporters on what checks are in place to ensure Musk — whose companies have billions of dollars in current federal contracts — is accessing data to his advantage, the billionaire insisted that DOGE posts all of its activity on its website “so all of our actions are maximally transparent.”
The DOGE site on Sunday included a list of mostly canceled government contracts and a message on its “savings” tab: “Receipts coming over the weekend!”
According to one person familiar with DOGE’s efforts, the team acquiring access the IRS system would not allow them to change any data within it. But if granted, the access would allow unfettered access to access any person’s tax filings.
According to an IRS rulebook for the system posted online, anyone accessing IDRS is specifically not allowed to review the personal tax information of relatives, friends, neighbors or celebrities.
“IDRS users shall not access the account of any taxpayer or another IRS employee unless there is a business need and access has been formally authorized as part of the user’s official duties,” the agency rulebook stated.
The policy noted: “Willful unauthorized disclosure, access or inspection of non-computerized taxpayer records, including hard copies of returns – as well as computerized information – is a crime, punishable upon conviction, by fines, prison terms and termination of employment.”
While a district court judge in Manhattan has temporarily blocked DOGE’s access to the Treasury Department system for now, a separate ruling by another district court judge has allowed DOGE to access data at the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Veterans Affairs is preparing to lay off as many as 80,000 workers in the coming weeks in the latest phase of the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the federal workforce, according to an internal memo obtained by ABC News.
VA Secretary Doug Collins later confirmed the planned cuts in a video posted to X, saying the agency is aiming for a 15% workforce cut that could begin in the coming months.
Collins said the VA will continue to hire for open “mission critical” positions while the agency downsizes in other areas, so that “health care and benefits for VA beneficiaries are not impacted.”
“We regret anyone who loses their job, and it’s extraordinarily difficult for me as a VA leader, and your secretary, to make these types of decisions. But the federal government does not exist to employ people. It exists to serve people,” Collins said.
Top Republicans and Democrats raised concerns with the plans and how they might be implemented.
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, said on X that that “the Department of Veterans Affairs is in need of reform but current efforts to downsize the department and increase efficiency must be done in a more responsible manner.”
“I expect the VA to work with Congress to right size the VA workforce and allow us to legislate necessary changes,” he added.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the panel, criticized the announcement, saying the “plan prioritizes private sector profits over veterans’ care, balancing the budget on the backs of those who served.”
In a March 4 memo to senior agency leaders, chief of staff Christopher Syrek said the VA’s “initial objective is to return to our 2019-end strength numbers of 399,957 employees” as part of the Department of Government Efficiency-led wave of large-scale firings and reorganization of agencies.
“VA, in partnership with our DOGE leads, will move out aggressively, while taking a pragmatic and disciplined approach to identify and eliminate waste, reduce management and bureaucracy, reduce footprint, and increase workplace efficiency,” Syrek said in the memo obtained by ABC News.
Already, the VA has said it has dismissed 2,400 probationary workers — although some were subsequently hired back to the agency, workers and lawmakers told ABC News.
Agencies are required to submit the first piece of their reorganization plans — with proposals for potential layoffs — to the Office of Personnel Management by March 13.
The VA did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
Even as the VA prepares to trim its workforce, the agency has faced setbacks in other cost-cutting efforts.
On Wednesday, Collins announced that the agency had saved $900 million by canceling more than 500 “non mission critical and duplicative” contracts, after initially claiming the agency had identified $2 billion in contracts for potential savings.
The agency has faced internal resistance to the contract cuts — some of which directly support medical care and facilities — and has reversed the cancellation of many of the initial batch of more than 800 originally identified for cuts.
(WASHINGTON) — Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy comes to the White House on Friday to ink a deal that would give the U.S. access to his country’s mineral resources — an agreement that President Donald Trump has cast a way to ensure American taxpayers get paid back for supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia.
“We’ll be digging. We’ll be dig, dig, digging. Dig, we must,” Trump said on Thursday, saying the U.S. would be “doing a substantial amount of work” in Ukraine “taking the rare earth, which we need in our country very badly.”
“It’ll be great for Ukraine,” he continued. “It’s like a huge economic development project. So, it’ll be good for both countries.”
Zelenskyy, meanwhile, has spoken about the deal in different terms — describing it as a means to an end: keeping U.S. backing.
If not the full-fledged military security guarantee he wants, Trump administration officials have said a U.S. economic investment on the ground in Ukraine could serve as a kind of barrier to a further Russian invasion.
“I will meet with President Trump,” the Ukrainian leader said on Wednesday. “For me, and for all of us in the world, it is crucial that America’s assistance is not stopped. Strength is essential on the path to peace.”
ABC News spoke to officials and analysts to break down what’s in the deal, and what the agreement could mean for Ukraine’s future and efforts to end the war after three grueling years.
What is — and isn’t — in the deal
Officials familiar with the negotiations say that under the terms of the deal, the U.S. and the Ukraine will work together to unearth deposits of valuable minerals and other natural Ukrainian resources.
Unlike the original proposal, this framework does not call for Kyiv to use the proceeds from the sale of those resources to pay the U.S. $500 billion — which the Trump administration previously characterized as “payback” for the roughly $183 billion spent in response to Russia’s invasion, according to the U.S. special inspector general in charge of overseeing Ukrainian aid.
Instead, the deal aims to create an investment fund for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction that will be jointly owned by both countries, they say, and that additional negotiations on the control of that fund and its operation will take place will take place after the initial deal is cemented.
Other factors will depend on the free market.
“The profitability of the fund is entirely dependent on the success of new investments in Ukraine’s resources,” said Gracelin Baskaran, the director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Meredith Schwartz, a research associate at the same program.
“Therefore, the response of private industry is key to the success of the fund and will determine how much value the United States ultimately derives,” they added.
But officials say the Ukrainians also made concessions. Officials say Kyiv initially wanted the terms of the deal to include concrete security guarantees for Ukraine — something the current framework lacks.
“However, the idea is that with joint U.S.-Ukraine investment in the nation’s resources, the United States will continue to have a stake in Ukraine’s security, stability, and lasting peace and therefore be incentivized to uphold and defend Ukrainian security,” Baskaran and Schwartz said.
If it proves successful, Baskaran and Schwartz say the U.S. may boost its mineral security — but that the results could take decades to come to fruition.
“Mining is a long-term effort — so the United States may not yield benefits for another 20 years,” they said.
Trump himself has acknowledged the uncertainty.
“You know, you dig and maybe things aren’t there like you think they’re there,” he said on Thursday.
A different tune from Trump
After repeatedly bashing Zelenskyy in recent days, Trump softened his tone on Thursday.
Asked if he still believed Zelenskyy was a dictator — an assertion he made just over a week ago — Trump answered, “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that,” before brusquely moving on to the next questioner.
Later in the day, Trump also offered praise for Zelenskyy and Ukrainian fighters’ valor on the battlefield.
“We’ve given him a lot of equipment and a lot of money, but they have fought very bravely. No matter how you figure it, they have really fought,” he said. “Somebody has to use that equipment. And they have been very brave in that sense.”
Ukrainian officials who have been urging Zelenskyy to accept the mineral pact are likely to see this turnaround as proof positive for their main argument — that signing off on Trump’s deal will boost ties between the Trump administration and Kyiv, while drawing out negotiations would further sour the president’s view of Zelenskyy.
But whether any bonhomie will last is unclear.
“Critical mineral resource access is the latest arena for Trump to focus his transactional methods of diplomacy,” Baskaran and Schwartz argue. “But the viability of the deal remains to be seen as tensions continue to rise between the two world leaders.”
Trump is not known for his patience, and some U.S. officials anticipate slow-moving results from the agreement could leave Trump frustrated.
Or, if the two clash during their high-stakes White House meeting, the president could become embittered toward Zelenskyy again even sooner where Trump is likely to spotlight potential benefits the mineral agreement holds for the U.S. and the Ukrainian leader is likely to push for additional American security guarantees.
But the president shared only positive predictions on the eve of the meeting.
“I think we’re going to have a very good meeting,” he said. “We’re going to get along really well. Okay. We have a lot of respect. I have a lot of respect for him.”
John E. Herbst, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, argues the very fact that the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump is taking place is a good sign for Ukraine.
“Zelenskyy’s visit highlights how far he has come from two weeks back, when Trump spoke of seeing Putin as many as three times in the near future, or even last week, when senior Russian and US officials were meeting in Riyadh,” he said. “Yet now it is Zelenskyy, not Putin, in the Oval Office.”
The other negotiations
While much of the public focus has shifted toward negotiations over the mineral deal in recent weeks, talks ultimately aimed at ultimately ending the war in Ukraine have quietly continued on a separate track.
On Thursday, American and Russian officials met in Istanbul for more than 6 hours to discuss increasing staff at their respective embassies in Moscow and Washington — a move Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously said was essential for furthering potential areas cooperation between the countries, including resolving the war in Ukraine.
Officials from sides reported a favorable outcome from the meeting, and predict that an larger diplomatic footprint could create momentum for peace talks and a potential summit between Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
As a chorus of European leaders have tried to encourage Trump to include American security guarantees for Ukraine to enforce a truce with Russia, the president has continued to say he trusts Putin to hold up his end of a deal.
“I’ve known him for a long time now,” Trump said. “I don’t believe he’s going to violate his word. I don’t think he’ll be back. When we make a deal, I think the deal is going to hold.
But ahead of his meeting with the U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, he added a potentially important caveat.
“You know, look, it’s, trust and verify, let’s call it that,” he said.
Clifford D. May, founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues it’s imperative that the president is clear-eyed in his dealings with Putin.
“As President Trump attempts to negotiate a halt to Russia’s war against Ukraine, it’s not unreasonable for him to show respect for Mr. Putin (as he has been) if he believes that will make Mr. Putin more likely to agree to concessions,” he said.
“But it’s imperative that President Trump harbor no illusions about Mr. Putin – about his character, ambitions, ideology, and his abiding hatred for American greatness,” May added.
