Trump gets warm welcome from House Republicans in 1st stop back in Washington
Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead. Via Flickr
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump was greeted with a standing ovation from House Republicans at his first stop back in Washington on Wednesday.
“It’s nice to win,” Trump said as he took the stage at the conference’s internal meeting at the Hyatt Regency near the Capitol.
Ahead of his arrival, House Speaker Mike Johnson celebrated Trump as the “comeback king.”
Trump smiled and shook Johnson’s hand and other top GOP brass on stage, including Rep. Elise Stefanik, who has been named as Trump’s U.S ambassador to the United Nations.
The meeting comes as Republicans inch closer to a majority in the House. While ABC News has not yet projected which party will control the chamber, Republicans are two seats away from the threshold with a dozen races still undecided.
House Republicans took an early victory lap as they came back to town Tuesday for the lame-duck session, saying they are prepared to enact Trump’s agenda on Day 1 of his administration come January.
“I just want to thank everybody,” Trump told the room. “You’ve been incredible. We worked with a lot of you to get you in, and you helped me, and you helped me too.”
As the press was being escorted out of the room, pool reporters noted Trump told lawmakers: “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you do something else, unless you say he’s so good we’ve got to figure something out.”
The friendly atmosphere comes ahead of Trump’s sit-down with President Joe Biden in the Oval Office, a return of a White House tradition that Trump flouted in 2020.
Trump landed at Joint Base Andrews for the first time since leaving office in January 2021 flanked by billionaire Elon Musk, a sign of some of the new faces that may dominate Trump’s orbit in his second term.
This is Trump’s first public appearance since his speech in the early hours after Election Day. He’s since huddled at Mar-a-Lago, where he’s been rolling out picks for Cabinet roles and other administration positions.
Musk has been weighing in on the decisions, ABC News previously reported.
On Tuesday, Trump announced Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy would lead a what he’s calling a new “Department of Government Efficiency” to provide outside guidance on reforming federal agencies and cutting government “waste.”
(WASHINGTON) — Pete Hegseth told senators on the committee investigating his qualifications to be secretary of defense on Tuesday that “restrictive rules of engagement” have “made it more difficult to defeat our enemies” as Democrats on the panel suggested he undervalued the laws of war.
Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Defense, told Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the committee, that it would be his priority “that lawyers aren’t the ones getting in the way” of military effectiveness.
Reed said Hegseth’s advocacy for pardons for convicted war criminals when he was a Fox News host raised questions about his respect for the military judicial process as the members of the committee questioned the nominee.
Reed referenced three acts of clemency Trump took at the end of his first administration and for which Hegseth made a public case for, including two convictions by courts martial, saying that in “two of these cases, the military personnel who served in combat with these convicted service members were not supportive of the pardons.”
“They did their duty as soldiers to report war crimes,” Reed said. “Your definition of lethality seems to embrace those people who do commit war crimes, rather than those who stand up and say, ‘This is not right.'”
Shortly before Trump’s pardons in November 2019, Hegseth said the president could take “imminent action” on the convictions of Army Lt. Clint Lorance and Green Beret Maj. Matt Golsteyn for war crimes and the demotion in rank of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who was acquitted of killing a wounded Islamic State captive but sentenced to four months confinement and a reduction in rank for posing with a corpse during a 2017 deployment to Iraq.
“I’ve thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality,” Hegseth told Reed in Wednesday’s confirmation hearing, “ensuring that the men and women on the frontlines have the opportunity to destroy…the enemy, and that lawyers aren’t the ones getting in the way.”
Pressed later by independent Sen. Angus King, Hegseth agreed that the Geneva Convention was the “law of the land,” but that such laws of war existed “above reality” and there was a “tactical distinction” between international laws and fighting on the ground.
“By the time it trickles down to a company or a platoon or a squad level, you have a rules of engagement that nobody recognizes. And then it makes you incredibly difficult to actually do your job on the battlefield,” the combat veteran said.
“We follow rules. But we don’t need burdensome rules of engagement [that] make it impossible for us to win these wars,” he said.
Reed, also an Army veteran, asked Hegseth, “You’ve already disparaged in writing the Geneva Convention, the rules of law, all of these things. How you be able to effectively lead a military in which one of the principal elements is discipline, respect for lawful authority?”
The senator also demanded a derogatory term Hegseth used to describe Army lawyers in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, or JAGs, whom he called “jagoffs” in his book “War on Warriors.” “No infantrymen like Army lawyers,” Hegseth wrote at the time.
Hegseth first refused to elaborate when asked, but, pressed a second time by Reed, offered the term referred to “a JAG officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the warfighters, their promotions, their medals, in front of having the backs of those are making the tough calls on the front lines. Reed replied sarcastically, “Interesting.”
Hegseth acknowledged that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is formed by “laws … set by Congress” when Sen. Elissa Slotkin asked if he’d seek to change them.
Slotkin noted Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, was a “JAG officer for most of his life.”
Hegseth said he was only “speaking about particular JAG officers I’ve had to deal with” in his earlier writing.
(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) — The Supreme Court on Monday was divided over whether the Food and Drug Administration had unlawfully rejected millions of flavored e-cigarettes for approved sale in U.S. over concerns about nicotine addiction among young people.
During oral arguments in a case that could have a significant impact on public health, the justices grappled with tobacco industry claims that the government had given unclear and shifting requirements for new product applications and failed to provide proper notice to the companies.
“FDA switched its position on what studies were required” to show that the products have benefits to existing smokers that offset risks to youth, argued Eric Heyer, the attorney representing vape manufacturers Triton Distribution and Vapetasia, which are seeking a green light to market e-liquids such as “Jimmy the Juice Man Peachy Strawberry” and “Iced Pineapple Express.”
Federal law requires sellers of new nicotine products to provide regulators with scientific evidence to show that the products would promote public health, but the statute does not spell out specifically what evidence is necessary and sufficient. The FDA’s guidance on how to meet that requirement is at the center of the case.
“Their argument is that the guidance were actually a moving target, that either they weren’t clear or you changed the guidance as time went on,” said Justice Clarence Thomas, who appeared sympathetic to vape manufacturers.
“That is their argument,” replied Biden administration lawyer Curtis Gannon, representing the FDA, adding, “But I think that the key point is that they knew from the statute that they needed to be making this comparison about what the benefits were with respect to existing smokers and weighing that against the potential costs with respect to nonsmokers and attracting youth.”
Justice Neil Gorusch suggested that the companies might not have been given “fair notice” of how they could comply with the law. “Wouldn’t due process require an opportunity for notice and a hearing?” he asked Gannon.
E-cigarettes and vapes, which deliver nicotine without some of the harmful effects of smoking, have been booming in popularity. Kid-friendly flavors, such as fruit, candy, mint, menthol and desserts, are not approved by the FDA and are on the market illegally.
While vaping among youth is declining, more than 1.6 million children use the products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly 90% of them consume illicit flavored brands.
Manufacturers have acknowledged that their products may appeal to youth but insist that a “growing body of scientific evidence” shows that “flavors are crucial to getting adult smokers to make the switch and stay away from combustible cigarettes.”
A federal appeals court sided with the companies last year, saying the agency had acted arbitrarily. If the Supreme Court upholds that ruling, it could clear the way for broader marketing and sale of flavored nicotine products.
The Court’s three liberal justices all seemed to share the government’s view that FDA did not illegally move the goal posts during the process and that the companies simply lacked the evidence to win approval.
Since 2009, when Congress passed legislation aimed at curbing tobacco use among young people, the government has almost universally denied tobacco company requests to sell flavored nicotine e-liquids, citing risks of addiction among minors.
The FDA said the two companies in this case provided insufficient evidence that the benefits of their flavored e-products in helping tobacco smokers quit exceed the dangers of hooking children.
“I’m so totally confused,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Heyer. “What [FDA] said is what you provided wasn’t sufficient.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she was “baffled” by Heyer’s argument because the FDA had explicitly articulated its standard.
“I guess I’m not really seeing what the surprise is here, or what the change is here,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “There’s just not a lot of mystery here about what FDA was doing. You might disagree with that, because you think that, in fact, the world of 40-year-olds really wants to do blueberry vaping, but you can’t say that FDA hasn’t told you all about what it’s thinking in this respect.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who could be a critical vote in the case, signaled sympathy to the industry’s complaint about discretionary government regulation but suggested he wasn’t convinced FDA had acted unreasonably.
“If the agency says [your claims of benefits to adult smokers] that doesn’t outweigh the harm to youth, we’ve reviewed everything, we’re aware of everything, of course they’re aware of everything that’s out there, that’s kind of the end of it, isn’t it?” Kavanaugh asked.
Even if they lose the case, several justices noted, the vape manufacturers could reapply for approval with the FDA in a new application.
While the first Trump administration had taken a hard line against the marketing and sale of sweet and candy-flavored vapes, president-elect Donald Trump said during the campaign that he wants to “save” flavored vapes.
“We don’t know exactly what that’s going to look like,” said Heyer. But, he added, that his clients “can’t afford to wait that out.”
Nearly a quarter of high school students who use e-cigarettes consume illicit menthol-flavored varieties, according to the 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey.
Josie Shapiro, the 2024 national youth ambassador for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids who testified before Congress on the dangers of nicotine addiction, said illicit flavored vapes hooked her at age 14.
“I think that by marketing any sort of flavored product as bubble gum or any of the genres of candy, it’s going to catch the eyes of children,” Shapiro said. “I’m still addicted, and I’m still trying to fight my addiction. Honestly, the FDA needs to regulate all flavored tobaccos to flavor ‘tobacco’ products and get them off the market.”
Public health experts have credited the FDA’s restrictions on flavored nicotine products with helping to drive down the number of teenagers who vape gradually from an “epidemic” level just five years ago.
The case, Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, will be decided before the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June 2025.
