Van Hollen slams Rubio in contentious exchange over deportations and Abrego Garcia
Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Student Borrower Protection Center
(WASHINGTON) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio returned to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday, appearing before his former colleagues for the first time since his confirmation to defend the president’s foreign policy and the administration’s budget priorities for the year ahead.
Rather than a warm homecoming, Rubio was quickly on defense, with several Senate Democrats pressing the secretary on the State Department’s reorganization and spending cuts, as well as Middle East policy and El Salvador detentions.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., spent much of his allotted time criticizing Rubio on a number of issues, including his coziness with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele and the Trump administration’s failure to “facilitate” in returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a migrant who was erroneously deported to El Salvador, to the United States. Abrego Garcia was living in Maryland at the time he was deported.
“In the case of El Salvador, absolutely, absolutely, we deported gang members, gang members — including the one you had a margarita with. And that guy is a human trafficker, and that guy is a gang banger, and that and the evidence is going to be clear,” Rubio asserted, referring to Van Hollen meeting with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador in April.
“Mr. Chairman, he can’t make unsubstantiated comments like that,” Van Hollen protested. “Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the federal court of the United States because he hasn’t done it under oath!”
Van Hollen has said neither man drank from the glasses that he said officials put on the table during the meeting that appeared to have liquid inside with salt or sugar rims.
“No judge and the judicial branch cannot tell me or the president how to conduct foreign policy,” Rubio shot back. “No judge can tell me how I have to outreach to a foreign partner or what I need to say to them, and if I do reach that foreign partner and talk to them, I have under no obligation to share that with the judiciary branch. Diplomacy doesn’t work that way.”
“You’re just blowing smoke now,” Van Hollen said.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch, R-Idaho, had to intervene in the at-times contentious conversation as Van Hollen compared Rubio’s policy on deportations and the El Salvador detentions of migrants to the “shameful era” of McCarthy-era witch hunts and the red scare, saying the administration’s “campaign of fear and repression is eating away at foundational values of our democracy.”
“Back then, it took one voice, attorney Joseph Welch, to cut through the hysteria with a simple question that marked the beginning of the end of that shameful era: ‘Have you no sense of decency?'” Van Hollen said as he concluded his line of questioning. “And I would ask you the same, Secretary Rubio. You have shown, with your words and your actions what your answer is. I have to tell you directly and personally that I regret voting for you as secretary of state.”
(WASHINGTON) — A federal appeals court is temporarily delaying Wednesday’s court order blocking President Donald Trump’s tariffs, reinstating them at least for the time being.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an administrative stay of the decision while it considers Trump’s appeal.
The administration earlier Thursday urged the New York-based Court of International Trade to delay its order, warning that enforcement of the ruling will cause a “foreign policy disaster scenario.”
In an opinion on Wednesday, the three-judge panel struck down Trump’s global tariffs as “contrary to law.”
The judges found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which Trump used to enact his tariffs — does not give him the “unlimited” power to levy tariffs like the president has in recent months.
“The President’s assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA. The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law,” the judges wrote.
According to the judges, Congress, not the president, has the authority to impose tariffs under most circumstances, and Trump’s tariffs do not meet the limited condition of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” that would allow him to act alone.
On Thursday, a second federal court determined that Trump’s global were “unlawful.”
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras said in an order the International Economic Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the president the power to impose most of his recent tariffs.
Notably, the decision from Contreras – an Obama appointee – only restricts the Trump administration’s ability to collect tariffs from the two companies that filed the lawsuit, Learning Resources, Inc., and hand2mind, Inc.
The Department of Justice on Thursday requested a stay to Wednesday’s ruling, saying it’s needed “to avoid immediate irreparable harm to United States foreign policy and national security.”
“It is critical, for the country’s national security and the President’s conduct of ongoing, delicate diplomatic efforts, that the Court stay its judgment. The harm to the conduct of foreign affairs from the relief ordered by the Court could not be greater,” lawyers with the Department of Justice argued.
According to the administration, the court order would strip the president of leverage in trade negotiations, imperil the trade deals already reached, and make the country vulnerable to countries that “feel a renewed boldness to take advantage of” the current situation.
Responding to the ruling, White House spokesman Kush Desai evoked the trade deficit and said, “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” adding that that the administration is committed to using “every lever of executive power to address this crisis.”
The Trump administration had quickly filed a notice of appeal to challenge Wednesday’s decision.
The case now heads to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where they could ask for a stay of the order.
The Court of International Trade issued the decision across two cases — one filed by a group of small businesses and another filed by 12 Democratic attorneys general.
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford called the ruling “a win for the rule of law and for Nevadans’ pocketbooks.”
“I am extremely pleased with the court’s decision to strike down these tariffs; they were both unlawful and economically destructive,” he said. “The president had no legal authority to impose these tariffs, and his unlawful actions would have caused billions of dollars of damage to the American economy.”
Since Trump announced sweeping tariffs on more than 50 countries in April, his administration has faced half a dozen lawsuits challenging the president’s ability to impose tariffs without the approval of Congress.
New York Attorney General Letitia James called the decision a “major victory for our efforts to uphold the law and protect New Yorkers from illegal policies that threaten American jobs and economy.”
“The law is clear: no president has the power to single-handedly raise taxes whenever they like. These tariffs are a massive tax hike on working families and American businesses that would have led to more inflation, economic damage to businesses of all sizes, and job losses across the country if allowed to continue,” James’ statement continued.
Lawyers for the small businesses alleged that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which Trump invoked to impose the tariffs — does not give the president the right to issue “across-the-board worldwide tariffs,” and that Trump’s justification for the tariffs was invalid.
“His claimed emergency is a figment of his own imagination,” the lawsuit said. “Trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency.”
During a hearing earlier this month, a group of three judges — who were appointed by presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan — pushed a lawyer for the small businesses to provide a legal basis to override the tariffs. While a different court in the 1970s determined that the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 — the law that preceded the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — gave the president the right to impose tariffs, no court has weighed whether the president can impose tariffs unilaterally under the IEEPA.
During a May 13 hearing, Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer from the conservative Liberty Justice Center representing the plaintiffs, argued that Trump’s purported emergency to justify the tariffs is far short of what is required under the law.
“I’m asking this court to be an umpire and call a strike; you’re asking me, well, where’s the strike zone? Is it at the knees or slightly below the knees?” Schwab argued. “I’m saying it’s a wild pitch and it’s on the other side of the batter and hits the backstop, so we don’t need to debate that.”
The ruling marks the first time a federal court has issued a ruling on the legality of Trump’s tariffs. In May, a federal judge in Florida nominated by Trump suggested the president has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, but opted to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade.
-ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning turned up the heat on House Republican holdout votes endangering passage of the megabill aimed at advancing his legislative agenda, sources told ABC News.
Trump spoke to the conference as more than a dozen Republicans seek additional changes to the legislation. Without changes, there is enough opposition to defeat it as Speaker Mike Johnson can only afford to lose three votes.
Trump used an expletive to urge House Republican conference members not to mess with Medicaid and to vote in favor of his bill Tuesday morning, sources told ABC News.
That demand comes as hard-liners push for stricter Medicaid cuts just a day or so before the massive bill — full of a laundry list of Trump’s campaign promises — is expected to head to the floor. Johnson is aiming for a vote on Wednesday.
Another sticking point among Republican holdouts is a cap on state and local tax deductions. And sources tell ABC News that Trump told the cadre of Republicans pushing for a higher cap on the state and local tax deduction (SALT) to take the current deal on the table and “move on.”
Trump urged Republicans to stick together and get the bill done — and deliver for the American people, according to a White House official.
A White House official told ABC News that Trump is losing patience with the Republican holdouts, including the SALT Caucus and the House Freedom Caucus. The president made it clear that he wants every Republican to vote yes on the bill, the official added.
Leaving the House GOP conference meeting, Trump said the meeting went well, but pushed back against those reports that he’s losing patience with Republican holdouts.
“I think it was a really great; that was a meeting of love. Let me tell you, that was love in that room. There was no shouting. I think it was a meeting of love,” Trump told reporters, later adding that anyone who said he was losing patience was “a liar.”
Projecting confidence, Trump said “we’re going to get it done,” adding that “we’re ahead of schedule.”
So was Trump’s pressure campaign enough to move those on the fence to the yes column?
Asked if he thinks Trump moved any votes, holdout Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., said “yeah, I suppose so.” Still Biggs didn’t commit to supporting the bill.
Fellow holdout Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said Trump “did a great job,” but declined to say whether Trump changed his mind.
Other hard-liners tell ABC News that they still believe changes to the bill — like those additional Medicaid cuts — could still be on the table. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said he believes more “tweaks” can be made before the bill goes to the House Rules Committee at 1 a.m. Wednesday morning.
But time is running out and Trump was clear he doesn’t want any more delays.
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries sent a letter to Johnson and Rules Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, requesting they “immediately reschedule” that 1 a.m. Rules Committee meeting.
The New York Democrat decried the legislation for what he called the “largest” cut to Medicaid and nutritional assistance in American history.
“It is deeply troubling that you would attempt to jam this legislation down the throats of the American people,” Jeffries wrote in a statement to his colleagues. “What else are you hiding?”
“It is imperative that you immediately reschedule the meeting so that it may be debated in the light of day,” Jeffries added. Republicans scheduled the hearing at the earliest possible hour in compliance with House rules after the Budget Committee approved the package late Sunday.
Ahead of the meeting, Trump — flanked by Johnson — issued a stern warning for Republicans who don’t fall in line on the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” warning they could be primaried if they vote against his signature bill.
Trump emphasized that the GOP is a unified party, but also added that people aren’t going to get everything they want in the bill.
“Well it’s not a question of holdouts, we have a tremendously unified party. We’ve never had a party like this. There’s some people that want a couple of things that maybe I don’t like or that they’re not going to get, but I think we’re going to have tremendous — not luck. We have tremendous talent,” Trump said.
After the president left, Republican leaders delivered remarks but took no questions — telling reporters he had to “tie up the remaining loose ends” with holdouts.
“Failure is simply not an option,” the Louisiana Republican said. “We have to get this done.”
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — For years, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been the face of a fight in Congress to reauthorize and expand access to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which provides compensation to individuals exposed to nuclear waste. Now, Hawley has announced a breakthrough: reauthorization and expansion of the program in the Senate’s version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
If the Senate’s version of the bill is finally adopted, it will include in it the largest expansion of the program since its inception in 1990, allowing individuals in regions of Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky and Alaska, as well as the already-qualified “downwinders” exposed to nuclear radiation from the testing of the atomic bomb, to be compensated for exposure to toxic waste.
In an exclusive phone interview with ABC News Thursday night, Hawley called the inclusion of the RECA provisions in the Senate’s version of the megabill advancing President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda a “huge step forward” in the fight to secure compensation for individuals affected by nuclear exposure.
“This will be, if we can get the Big Beautiful Bill passed, this will be a huge huge victory,” the Missouri Republican said during the phone call.
The proposed reauthorization of RECA will be included in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s portion of the reconciliation package. In addition to expansion and reauthorization, the proposal also allows for claims to be used for increased levels of atmospheric testing and adds uranium mine workers who worked in the mines from 1971-1990 to be eligible for benefits under the bill.
“There will be more to do,” Hawley said. “But this is a very very significant expansion.”
Hawley has been engaged in attempting to reauthorize RECA for several years. Some of his constituents in St. Louis are affected by nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project that is currently stored in the West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton, Missouri.
One of those constituents is Dawn Chapman, who lives within miles of the West Lake Landfill and whose son and husband both suffer from autoimmune diseases as a result of exposure to the toxic waste near their home. Chapman has been to Capitol Hill several times over the last few years to advocate for families like hers.
“Tonight, we know we are not alone,” Chapman told ABC News Thursday. “With the help of Sen. Hawley and our community members as well as our other bipartisan REA family, we have been able to turn the lights back on, and make RECA bigger to cover more communities.”
For those affected by nuclear exposure, Hawley said he hopes this moment shows that the country is standing beside them.
“I think it really is an incredible sign that the country is with them,” Hawley said. “I think now this is a measure of vindication. It is a measure of appreciation.”
The Senate has twice passed an expansion and reauthorization of RECA with bipartisan support, but the bill has failed to gain traction in the House, in part due to concerns about the very high price tag originally estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. That price tag has been refuted by proponents of the bill, and they’ve taken steps to modify it to lower the cost.
With further review and with programs set to sunset in 2028, the price tag should, Hawley said, fit well within the funds allocated to the Judiciary Committee to craft their portion of the reconciliation package. The CBO has not yet scored this portion of the package.
The Senate will still need to maneuver these provisions through the Senate’s procedural rules test as well as the finnicky Senate GOP conference, but Hawley said Majority Leader John Thune has been an ally in including the RECA language in the package. Thune’s support could be critical to keeping the language in the bill.
“It would not be in this mark were it not for him and his commitment to putting it into reconciliation. He has been a terrific partner,” Hawley said.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has also conveyed that he “wants to pass the RECA bill,” Hawley said. Inclusion in the bill would make it difficult for House Republicans to reject RECA provisions, given that the package is massive and includes many other GOP priorities.
Hawley said he has spoken with Trump about the move to include this legislation in the tax and immigration bill.
“He’s been very involved in everything, and he and I have talked about the RECA program before on many occasions, we are glad for his involvement in all of this,” Hawley said of his conversations with Trump.
